Mehtab S. Gill, J.:— The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to allow him full reimbursement of medical expenses in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Renu Saigal v. State of Haryana, reported as 1998 (4) RSJ 557.
2. It has been held in Renu Saigal's case (supra) as under:—
“Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 21-Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940, Rules, 2(3), 3 and 4-Medical Reimbursement-Haryana Government policy instructions dated 11.8.1992 regarding restricting the reimbursement of medical expenses for chronic diseases to Rs. 500/- p.m on account of outdoor treatment. No distinction whatsoever made in the rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patient-Para 3 of the instructions dated 11.8.1992 insofar denying the benefit of full medical reimbursement to and outdoor patient quashed-Direction issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner both as indoor and outdoor patient.”
3. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment delivered in Renu Saigal's case (supra).
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not been able to convince me to the contrary.
5. In the light of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the government instructions dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondent to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as indoor and outdoor patient. The reimbursement of the amount be done at the rates fixed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The reimbursement be done within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is supplied to the respondent.
6. Petition allowed