- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Madhya Pradesh Pachi... v. Radhey Shyam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI ON THE 16thOF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 377 of 2024
MADHYA PRADESH PACHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO.
LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR IND
AND OTHERS
Versus
RADHEY SHYAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi - Advocate for the appellants.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Appellant has filed the present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2023, whereby Writ Petition No.11443/2010 was allowed by granting reimbursement of remaining 25% of medical bills of the respondent/petitioner.
2. The respondent/petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Lineman. He had cardiac issue and was referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore by the Civil Hospital, Jaora. The M.Y Hospital referred him to Bhandari Hospital, Indore, which is a private non-government hospital. He was given an estimate expenditure for treatment of Coronary Angioplasty of Rs.1.90 lakhs, since it was not possible for him to bear such expenses, therefore, he
1
got his treatment from Bhailala Amin General Hospital, Varoda. He submitted a bill for medical reimbursement of Rs.82,870/- which was rejected, hence he filed a writ petition before this Court.
3. The appellant/company came up with a plea that the respondent/petitioner did not sought prior permission for treatment outside the State of M.P., in private hospital, therefore, entire medical expenses cannot be reimbursed. The order dated 20.02.2002 provides for 75% reimbursement as per the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 and in cases where the prior permissions has been taken and the employee is referred by the Govt. hospital, 50% amount is liable to be released. The writ Court had allowed the writ petition directing release of 25% of the amount. Hence the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The work of a lineman is most risky and dangerous work. They have to work on a high tension as well as low tension line and most of the casualty takes place with only lineman. Therefore, while dealing with the case of lineman, the department should be more sympathetic in hearing the problem as the same occurs suddenly without prior indication. The salary of a lineman in the year 2007 was very low, therefore, it was not possible for him to get treated on such an expenditure of Rs.1.90 lakhs, hence, he somehow managed and got treated in private hospital at Bhailala Amin General Hospital, Varoda. There is no dispute that the treatment was not given, he produced all the medical documents and bills, which has not been
2
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
doubted. 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.63,000/- has already been released as per circular dated 20.02.2002, therefore, by paying remaining 25% will not cost heavy financial burden upon the petitioners.
6. The writ Court has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1996 SC 1388]. Specially in case of heart issues the doctors advise for immediate bye-pass surgery or angioplasty. The petitioner was a Class-4 employee at the relevant point of time and was not expected to know about the circular issued by M.P. Electricity Board time to time, that to in english. Hence no case for interference is made out.
7. The writ appeal is dismissed. sumathi
3
Alert