ORDER
This appeal under Clause 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been
Page 2 of 4
preferred by the petitioner/appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.21858/2023 by the learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition preferred by him has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant and his wife met with a road accident on 29.11.2020 while being in employment and sustained several injuries. They were taken to City Hospital in Jaora. The wife of appellant had suffered jaw injuries hence was shifted to CHL Jain Diwakar Hospital, Ratlam, where she was treated incurring an expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant was also admitted in the hospital and incurred heavy expenditure but he misplaced the bills. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a claim before the respondents for reimbursement of Rs.67,529/- for his wife and Rs.29,940/- for himself total amount being Rs.97,469/-. The claim was rejected by the respondents on the ground that CHL Jain Diwakar Hospital, Ratlam is not in the approved list of hospitals of the respondents under Circular dated 22.05.2003 being aggrieved by which the Writ Petition was preferred by the appellant which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that rejection of claim of the appellant by the respondents and its affirmation by the learned Single Judge is illegal. The appellant could not seek approval for his treatment as he did not have time for the same and as he was shifted to the nearest hospital. In light of Circular dated 16.10.2012 of the respondents, he was entitled for reimbursement of his medical bills since there is specific provision therein as regards relaxation in case of emergency. The said circular has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge in proper prospective. It is further submitted that in case of an emergency where a government servant is rushed to a hospital though
Page 3 of 4
private, he is entitled to get 100% refund for medical expenditure. Even though the accident had taken place on a Sunday the claim of the appellant was very much maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.1542/2016 (Smt. Madhu Meena Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. and Others) by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, Padma Sharma (Smt.) Vs. State of M.P. and Others I.L.R. (2010) M.P. 1089 and of the Delhi High Court in WP (C) 10684/2022 and CM application 31035/2022 Union of India and Another Vs. Shri Joginder Singh decided on 10.05.2023.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The Circular dated 16.10.2012 clearly states that an employee can be taken to a private hospital whether within or outside the State of M.P. and no prior permission for the same shall be required. However, it specifically states that the accident ought to have occurred while working for the company or for any other reason at the time of such work. It is hence applicable only where the accident occurs while performing or discharging the work for or of the company or any allied reasons. It does not provide that the benefit thereunder can be given even if the accident is caused while performing any private work.
6. In the present case, at the time when the accident occurred the appellant was going to Ratlam for his private work. It is not even his case that he was going to Ratlam for any official work of the company. It is hence undisputed that the accident did not occur at the time of performance of official work by the appellant. The benefit of Circular employee dated 16.10.2012 hence could not have been extended to the appellant as has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge.
Page 4 of 4
7. The case of Smt. Madhu Meena (Supra) was decided by relying upon the order passed in the case of Padma Sharma (Supra) in which the question was as regards interpretation of the term "family".
The same did not involve any interpretation of the Circular dated 16.10.2012 but was based upon M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 which apply to Government servants only whereas the petitioner is an employee of the respondents and is governed by separate rules altogether. The other judgment relied upon was the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Rakheja Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2004) 13 SCC 562. The said case was arising from Punjab and Haryana and admittedly the Rules applicable to Government employees in Punjab and Haryana are entirely different than the Rules by which the appellant is governed. In that case also the interpretation of Circular dated 16.10.2012 was not under consideration. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant hence do not help him in any manner.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant. The appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed in limini.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shilpa