Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the orders dated 21.7.2006 and 02.05.2007 attached as Annexure P -10 and P -14 respectively, whereby the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the heart surgery of her husband from Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, has been rejected and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of the medical bills submitted by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 97,471/ - and Rs. 7,000/ - in view of Ex -post Facto sanction given by respondent No. 4.
(2.) PETITIONER 's husband S.P. Khanna, had retired from Privately Managed Government Aided School, Kapurthala on 31.12.1998. He suffered heart problem and was admitted in Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, where Angiography and bypass surgery was conducted on him. He remained hospitalized from 16.1.2004 to 17.1.2004 and from 18.2.2004 to 02.03.2004. The petitioner had spent Rs. 15,300/ - on account of Angiography and a sum of Rs. 1,98,171/ - for by -pass surgery. The medical bills of the aforesaid amount was submitted by the petitioner to the District Education Officer (S), Kapurthala on 20.8.2004. The Director Health & Family Welfare Department, Chandigarh, verified the bill and grated ex -post, facto sanction on the basis of recommendations of the District/State Medical Board for the treatment taken from Escort at the AIIMS, New Delhi/Government rates to the tune of Rs. 97,471/ - and Rs. 7,000/ - vide Memo No. PMH(06)Pb/05/10759 dated 12.5.2005 and PMH No. (6)Pb/05/13726 dated 24.6.2005 respectively. The petitioner who is working as a Art and Craft Teacher posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Jhanjiri, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, is entitled to medical expenses for her own and for her dependant under the Medical Service (Medical Attendants) Rule, 1940. The Director Public Instructions (School) Punjab, Chandigarh, sought an affidavit of the petitioner to the effect that as to whether her husband is not serving in government/semi government service and is not obtaining any pension and his income from all sources is not more that Rs. 500/ - P.M. The petitioner submitted her affidavit stating therein that her husband has retired from Privately Managed Government Aided School and is not getting any medical allowance and medical assistance. It was rather mentioned that he is getting basic pension and D.A. Respondent No. 2 vide his memo No. 14/182 -2005 -Estt. -3(5) dated 21.7.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that her husband is not dependent upon her, therefore, she can not claim for the expenses on the treatment of her husband. The order of rejection dated 21.7.2005 is attached as Annexure P -10. The petitioner served a legal notice dated 22.7.2006 Annexure P -11 in which it was categorically mentioned by her that her husband was getting pension of Rs. 5,000/ - P.M. sans medical allowance and, therefore, he is economically and medically dependent on her. Respondent No. 2 vide memo No. 2/221 -06 -5(K)2/9954 dated 2.5.2007 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since husband of the petitioner is drawing pension of Rs. 5,000/ -, therefore payment of medical claim can not be made as per instructions No. 12/7/97 -5 Health 5/2848 dated 20.5.2004. This order dated 2.5.2007 is attached Annexure P -14. The petitioner has assailed both Annexures P -10 and P -14 in the present writ petition on the ground that husband of the petitioner has retired from Privately Managed Government Aided School and is physically and economically dependent upon her, but had not been granted medical allowance from the employer. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. v. : AIR1998SC659 , State of Punjab v. : [1998]1SCR1120 and a decision of this Court in the case of Nand Rani, Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Rajpura v. The State of Punjab and Ors. .
(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present matter is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions and has prayed for grant of amount which has been spent by her on the treatment of her husband.;