P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a retired employee of the department of Medical and Health, State of Rajasthan and has laid the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for claiming under mentioned relief's: - It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by a writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the said letters Annexure -3 (25.08.2007) & Annexure -5 (29.05.2007) and the respondents may kindly be directed to make payment of the amount of entire bills as mentioned above as expeditiously as possible. Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. For claiming the aforementioned reliefs, it is, inter alia, alleged in the writ petition that at the threshold of his service career, the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer w.e.f. 14.02.1970 and continued with the said position uptil his voluntary retirement from the service w.e.f. 30.11.1999. After retirement, the petitioner is getting regular pension and is also in receipt of medical facilities as per rules. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that on 24.01.2007, at Ladnu, he suffered cardiac problem and as per advice of the Medical Officer of Ladnu Govt. Hospital, he was shifted to Jaipur for specialized treatment at Jaipur. As per advice tendered by Senior Medical Officer of Ladnu, he has availed the medical services of a private hospital namely Tongia Heart & General Hospital, Jaipur. At Tongia Heart & General Hospital, Jaipur, which is a private hospital, necessary tests were conducted and thereafter keeping in view the blockage in the artries/heart, angioplasty was performed on 25.01.2007. The petitioner remained hospitalized as indoor patient for about four days and thereafter he was discharged on 28.01.2007. After his treatment, the petitioner applied for reimbursement of medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,55,350/ - only in the prescribed proforma. However, the request of the petitioner was turned down by the second respondent precisely on the ground that the treatment was undertaken by the petitioner at a private hospital which is not recognized by the Govt. of Rajasthan.
(2.) THE petitioner has further averred in the writ petition that the requisite angioplasty was an imminent need for saving his life and he made another attempt by annexing the medical bills with his letter dt. 12.11.2007 which was addressed to the second respondent. However, according to the petitioner, the said attempt also proved to be futile inasmuch as his claim for medical reimbursement was once again declined by a letter dt. 29.02.2007. The petitioner has termed the communication dt. 29.02.2007 (Ann. 5) as arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and has prayed for quashing the adverse communications to him. Resisting the petition preferred by the petitioner, a detailed reply was submitted by the respondents. It was submitted in the reply that in case of retired State employees, Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme is applicable and the said scheme of reimbursement is permissible if the pensioner has undertaken the treatment in a Govt. Hospital or a duly recognized hospital by the State Govt. In the reply, the respondents have also referred two clauses 4E of the Scheme. In sum and substance, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents are confined to certain technical reasons for denial of medical reimbursement.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that providing free medical facilities to the pensioners is an obligation of the welfare State and welfare State is not expected to show apathy towards the life of an individual. The learned counsel has urged that protecting the life of a citizen as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the legal obligation of a welfare State and therefore, denial of medical reimbursement is wholly unjust, unfair and against the basic tenets of law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the following authoritative legal precedents, Raj Laxman Taneja vs. State of Raj., : RLW 2005 (2) Raj. 1271, Tulcha Ram vs. State of Raj. & Ors.,, 2005 (2) WLC (Raj.) 250 and Ganesh Raj vs. State of Rajasthan, : 2005 (2) WLC (Raj.) 259.;