Govt can’t deny full medical repayment to its employees: HC

In a judgment while deciding a plea by a Delhi government employee against deductions made from his salary for his son’s medical treatment, the court said that all expenses incurred by a government employee for their own, or their dependents’, medical treatment shall be completely reimbursed.

A government employee can’t be denied medical reimbursements on the grounds that the hospital charged the patient more than the approved rates, in the event that the person was referred to the facility in question, the Delhi high court observed on Tuesday, even as it pulled up authorities for letting the case in question drag on for 16 years.

The high court directed the state government to reimburse the petitioner within four weeks. (File)

In a judgment while deciding a plea by a Delhi government employee against deductions made from his salary for his son’s medical treatment, justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that all expenses incurred by a government employee for their own, or their dependents’, medical treatment shall be completely reimbursed.

“Before parting, this court expresses its deep dismay as to how a petition seeking reimbursement for only ₹51, 824/- has been pending since 16 years, and is being vehemently contested by the Delhi government,” the court said on Tuesday.

“It does not stand to reason why any impediments are read in the rules which have the tendency to defeat the cherished Constitutional rights for which this Court has always stood as a custodian,” added the judge.

It emphasised that the “medical attendance rules formulated by the Centre and state governments are not merely rules relating to medical attendance,” but are in place to facilitate “sound health for all government employees and their families”.

The petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Verma, who was a reader in the court of the metropolitan magistrate in the city’s Tis Hazari court, in 2006 moved the high court, challenging deductions made by the state government from his salary on account of advances for the treatment of his son — who was suffering from brain tumour.

The petitioner, in 2003, received ₹2,34,000 in advances for his son’s treatment in the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute. However, in August 2004, he was issued a letter from the office of the Delhi district and sessions judge, asking him to return ₹51,854 of the advance.

Ruling in favour of Verma, the court on Tuesday said the petitioner cannot be faulted or penalised to pay the excess amount that was charged from him from the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, when the petitioner in the first instance did not choose the hospital but was referred there.

The judge directed the Delhi government to reimburse the petitioner within four weeks.

“I am unable to figure out even a single provision of law which has been taken in support by the respondents (Delhi government) to justify the deductions made in the claim of the petitioner. Merely making a statement that calculations have been made in accordance with the relevant rules as applicable to the Petitioner will not help the case of the petitioner,” said the court.