- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) It would be necessary to recap the progress of the proceedings from its inception in order to arrive at a final opinion about the subsisting grievance of the petitioner being persisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For this purpose, order dated 14.07.2015 is required to be reproduced, as it is, hereunder: "Petitioner facing acute renal problem, has approached this Court for reimbursement of Medical Bills. Two of his medical treatments at Appollo Hospital, Irba have also been reimbursed for different periods vide Annexures -4 and 6 i.e. up to June 2011. The Respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Koderma vide Annexure -9 dated 19.03.2015 forwarded his claim for necessary action to the department, but despite that, no final decision was taken and the writ petitioner had to approach this Court. 2. Considering the state of petitioner's health who has to undergo dialysis, respondents were allowed time to take a final decision on the petitioner's claim, for which even the Government Pleader No. IV also sought time to obtain instructions on 30.04.2015. The matter was adjourned again thereafter on the specific submission of the learned State counsel that the grievances of the petitioner towards reimbursement of Medical Bills will be redressed within a period of six weeks and all necessary formalities could also be completed. Petitioner was also expected to cooperate. After this, instruction was recorded in the order dated 15.05.2015, the matter was adjourned to 23.06.2015. Now, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 26.06.2015 taking a plea that reimbursement of Medical Bills were earlier approved in terms of the guidelines of the Health Department Circular No. 354(1c) dated 15.09.2006. However, for reimbursement of other Medical Bills, petitioner has not submitted any document before the respondent -authorities to show that he had undergone indoor treatment or outdoor treatment. Reference has been made to the Memo No. 174 dated 09.02.2015 issued to the petitioner for submission of the documents in support thereof, whereafter only, a decision could be taken in respect of Medical expenses of the petitioner. 3. This stand of the Respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer however is difficult to understand as he himself had forwarded the claim for medical reimbursement of the petitioner vide Annexure -9 for treatments ranging from 4th August 2011 to September 2012 totalling Rs. 2,73,643.70. Another claim of the petitioner was also forwarded by Annexure -8 letter no. 438 dated 19.03.2014 by the same Executive Engineer for treatments undertaken from November 2012 to July 2013. Strange as it may sound, the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 4) did not chose to seek any further document from the petitioner, if at all was required at the time he forwarded the petitioner's claim vide Annexures -8 and 9. As a result of that, much precious time appears to have lost which could have been duly undertaken in the processing of the petitioner's claim. The state of imbroglio has reached now. 4. To resolve the aforesaid state, the course which now seems to be proper is to direct the petitioner or his representative to appear before the Respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Koderma within a period of one week by 22.7.2011 with all supporting documents. The Respondent No. 4 would thereafter process the petitioner's claim and place it before the competent authority under the Road Construction Department after compliance of any other procedural requirements, as laid down in Circular dated 15.09.2006. Petitioner, if required, would also be available to appear before the Medical Board if such sanction is necessary for such processing. The Respondent No. 4 would ensure that the aforesaid formalities are completed within a period of two weeks thereafter. The competent authority under the respondent -Road Construction Department would take a decision on the petitioner's claim immediately thereafter and if the claim of the petitioner is found to be admissible and sanction / approval of the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department is required in terms of the said Circular, such requirements should also be undertaken within a period of two weeks thereafter. It is expected that by the next date fixed, the respondent -Road Construction Department and the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department take a final decision in respect of the petitioner's claim in accordance with law and bring it to the notice of the Court. 5. Needless to say, if in the meantime claim of the petitioner under any of the heads of treatment is found to be admissible, it is always open to the respondents to release the admissible amount so that necessary advance treatment, if required, can be undertaken by the petitioner at the specialized hospital. 6. The matter is therefore posted for 25.08.2015. 7. The Respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Koderma would be present on the next date before this Court and also file an affidavit relating to the outcome of the exercise to be undertaken as directed hereinabove. 8. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the counsel for the respondent State."
(3.) Unfortunately, the original petitioner passed away without any concrete outcome of the exercise being carried out by the respondents for reimbursement of the Medical Bills. His widow -present petitioner was substituted vide order dated 09.09.2015 passed in I.A. No. 5140/2015 which again requires reproduction hereunder: "The applicant is the widow of the sole petitioner, who unfortunately passed away on 11.8.2015 during pendency of the writ petition where he was seeking medical reimbursement of treatment of his Renal problem. Learned counsel for the State does not object to the prayer. Accordingly, the prayer for substitution is allowed. Registry shall carry out the correction in the array of the parties in the main writ petition. I.A. No. 5140 of 2015 stands disposed of. Learned Advocate General has appeared in the matter and apprised the Court about the processing of the bills of the petitioner -employee in terms of the Circular dated 15.9.2006 of the Health, Health Education and Family Welfare Department. It is submitted that for outdoor treatment reimbursement is not permissible even in such cases of acute Renal ailment. However, during course of the submissions, learned Advocate General has proposed that the provisions of the circular itself may be allowed to be given second thought for which he needs to deliberate with the concerned officials of the State. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for three weeks. List this case on 30.9.2015. Personal appearance of the respondent no.4, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Koderma, is dispensed with." ;