IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5462 of 2005
Dr.Dhirendra Kumar Singh, S/o-Vishwanath Singh, presently post as Lecturer,
Department of Economics, Shershah College, Sasaram and resident of Mohalla-
Chitragupta Mandi, Babu Bazar Ara, P.S.-Ara Town, Disrict-Bhojpur.
-Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Vice-Chancellor, Vir Kuar Singh University, Ara.
4. The Registrar, Vir Kuar Singh University, Ara.
5. The Principal, Shershah College, Sasaram.
6. The Principal Secretary-cum-the Commissioner, Human Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. -Respondents.
******
For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Nath.
Mr. Waliur Rahman.
For the State : Mr. Shankar Kumar, AC to AAG-15.
For the University: Mr. A.B. Sinha.
******
08 18.04.2011 The tragedy of University employees in relation to
medical treatment is writ large by this case. It shows how insensitive
and cold is the attitude of the State towards employees to whom they
are responsible.
Petitioner is a Lecturer in Shershah College, Sasaram
under the Vir Kuar Singh University, Ara. The said college is a
constituent college of the University. Petitioner had some cardiac
problem. Local doctors referred the petitioner at the Indira Gandhi
Institute of Cardiology, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna.
Petitioner immediately rushed there and was clinically examined. On
12.04.2004, the doctors at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology,
Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna referred the petitioner to All
India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi as it was a
complicated case of coronery heart disease. It is not in dispute that
-2-
petitioner immediately made an application to the Vice-Chancellor of
the University, which was duly forwarded through his Principal
requesting for permission to go to AIIMS immediately and requested
for funds as per the estimate received from AIIMS. This was duly
submitted to the Vice-Chancellor on 16.04.2004. As is usual, there
was no response probably because people wanted the sick people like
the petitioner to die rather than save his life. As the illness was critical
and complicated, petitioner rushed to AIIMS. He was immediately
admitted and operated upon. He was in AIIMS between 30.04.2004 to
01.05.2004 and a reimbursement certificate for indoor patient was
issued by the AIIMS duly signed by Dr. S. Seth, Assistant Professor,
Department of Cardiology, as he then was. Petitioner’s life having
been saved at his won cost, he returned and made representations
without success to the University and even to the Chancellor. While
making these representations, petitioner drew attention of the
authorities to the Government resolution/circular no.4617-718 dated
04.09.1985 wherein the State Government has held that it is the
University which is competent to take a decision for reimbursement of
medical benefits to the employees after the bills are submitted.
Petitioner, having been fed up of running from pillar to post all his
plea falling to ground, filed a writ petition for a direction to the State
and the University to reimburse his medical expenses.
At first the consistent stand of the State had been that
University employees not being State Government employees State
Government had absolutely nothing to do with the claim of medical
-3-
reimbursement as made by the petitioner. University pointed out that
University has no funds to its own, unless the State Government is
agreed to reimburse, the University could not pay the amount.
Virtually on both sides, that is, the State and the University, there was
a denial of liability to pay alternatively. It was submitted that the
petitioner has not followed the procedure and, as such, would not get
the reimbursement to the Court. It clearly appeared to be a case of
dichotomy because following a procedure for claiming reimbursement
arise only if there was a liability to pay and not otherwise. The
liability to pay itself was disputed.
At this stage, this Court directed the State to produce
the resolution no.4617-718 dated 04.09.1985. Now, at last the same
has been produced. The decision of the State with effect from
01.04.1985 is that teachers of University and the constituent Colleges
would be entitled to the same treatment in respect of medical
reimbursements as is given to the State Government employees. This
belies and belittles both the State and the University’s stand that they
were not entitled to reimburse medical expenses. Then, it clearly
states that in deserving cases medical reimbursement for treatment
outside the State would also be given. This is totally contrary to the
unashamed stand taken both by the University and the State that they
were not obliged to give medical reimbursement to the teachers of the
University much less like the State Government. Once this is now
settled then petitioner surely becomes entitled to be considered for
medical reimbursement because he was referred by the private doctor
-4-
to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna Medical College &
Hospital, Patna and then referred to All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi, a Central Government super specialty hospital,
where he was duly treated. At this stage, both State and the University
again raised the plea that even if the petitioner was otherwise entitled
that he had not followed the bureaucratic procedure in that regard, they
were not obliged to reimburse the petitioner. The bureaucratic
procedure is as if a person is seeking leave to go on a vacation. It is
not designed for meeting urgent medical need. In this regard, I can
only quote few lines from a judgment of this Court in similar case,
though of a State Government employee, in the case of Biresh
Chandra Chatterji Vs. State of Bihar and others since reported in
2008(1) PLJR 394, which is quoted hereunder:-
“…..In other words, what the State
wants to submit is that however critical the
illness may be, however emergent the
treatment may be, a person must take a
bureaucratic approach and wait for
bureaucratic approval in the hope that death
may delay itself pending approval. If they
do otherwise, they shall suffer the
consequences of not being favoured with
medical reimbursement. I am amazed at this
bureaucratic approach of the welfare
Government….”
-5-
Now, firstly, all I can say is that upon return from
Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna Medical College &
Hospital, Patna and having been referred to AIIMS, petitioner made an
application to the Vice-Chancellor through his Principal. If petitioner
was required to confirm to certain procedure, he should have been told
immediately. There was no response except deathly silence. The case
being complicated cardiac case petitioner rushed to AIIMS and was
operated. Now, it is said that as the bureaucratic hunger for sticking to
procedure was not followed, the petitioner lost its right of
reimbursement.
In my view, petitioner did all that was required of him
to do but authorities kept silent and did not respond. It is their funeral
and not the petitioner. Petitioner cannot be denied of his
reimbursement on this flimsy cold hearted bureaucratically.
Before parting, I may note the procedure that is
expecting of a University employee who seeks reimbursement of
medical expenses of such cases as has been explained by the learned
counsel for the State. I am doing so only to show that the procedure is
so designed to kill the claims, if not claimant, as noticed above, in the
decision of the State Government dated 04.09.1985 with effect from
01.04.1985, the teachers of Universities are entitled to medical
reimbursement just like State Government. The procedure is, as being
explained, that first the teacher must make an application to the
University (the Vice-Chancellor), the Vice-Chancellor must then
forward to Department of Human Resources Development,
-6-
Government of Bihar, the Department in its discretion may sanction
medical treatment or it may then recommend the case to the Health
Department. The Health Department may then sanction the treatment
or may order for examination by a Medical Board, in either case it
would send its recommendation to the Department of Human
Resources Development, who may then sent it to the Vice-Chancellor
for the needful action, the Vice-Chancellor would then request the
Department of Health to constitute the Medical Board, which would
then examine the teacher and sent its recommendation to the
Department of Health, who would then consider and then may send it
to the Department of Human Resources Development for onward
transmission to the University. Any teacher who survives this
bureaucratic procedure can go outside the State for medical treatment.
That is most unsatisfactory and unlike of a bureaucratically elected
welfare Government/State.
The procedure has to be first made known to the
teachers at large and, secondly, it must be simple and straight way,
keeping in view that we are dealing with health cases, which more
often than not which emergent and it is only because that this type of
cases are referred outside the State for treatment.
Till a proper procedure is laid down by the State, in the
interregnum, I direct that any teacher requiring any medical treatment
outside the State must make an application to the Registrar of the
University, who shall without delay asked the Chief Medical Officer-
cum-Civil Surgeon to immediately without delay constitute a Medical
-7-
Board to examine the person and make a recommendation about the
nature of treatment and the place of treatment outside the Bihar. The
place of treatment could be more than one. Once this recommendation
is received from the Medical Board so constituted, the Registrar would
then immediately without delay communicate the same to the person
and, upon treatment being done, the University would immediately
upon bills being submitted reimburse the petitioner without waiting for
the money coming from the State Government. The State Government
would then be obliged to reimburse the University of the said amount.
Till proper procedure is laid down, this procedure would be followed
and it would be incumbent upon the Department of Human Resources
Development to circulate this to all Universities immediately for
communicating it to the teaching paternity. In cases of emergent
nature where it may not be advisable to wait for the Medical Board
then the recommendation can be obtained from Government doctor of
a Government Hospital or Health Centre. A word of caution that
while laying down the procedure the Government must keep in mind
that they are not dealing with any other bureaucratic matter but health
related issue which must be simple and least cumbersome but also
have adequate checks to prevent misuse but those checks must not
super impose itself to defeat the purpose.
Thus, in view of my finding as aforesaid, I direct to
immediately reimburse the petitioner of Rs.1,18,205/-, as duly
certified by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The
bills whereof have already been submitted to the University. If the
-8-
reimbursement is not made within one month from today, the same
would have to be paid to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date it was due till the date it is paid. State
Government in its turn would be obliged to reimburse the entire
amount to the University or made adequate provisions for payment to
the University.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)