Case at a Glance
A Jamadar in the Rajasthan Government Secretariat had two cardiac stents implanted at the state-run SMS Hospital in 2016 and spent Rs. 1,26,407, but the department reimbursed only Rs. 68,787 under the 2013 Medical Attendance Rules. A colleague in a similar situation had been paid in full after the Finance Department granted relaxation. The State said the petitioner had not sought relaxation before submitting his bills. The Rajasthan High Court found no such requirement in the Rules, held that the State cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees, and ordered the balance to be paid within three months, failing which 6% interest will run.
The petitioner, then about 61 and working as a Jamadar in the Department of Personnel at the Government Secretariat, Jaipur, suffered a cardiac ailment on 24 September 2016. He was admitted to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, a state-run hospital, where two stents were implanted, and was discharged on 27 September 2016. On resuming duty he submitted verified bills for Rs. 1,26,407, but the department limited reimbursement to Rs. 68,787 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013.
He applied on 1 December 2016 and again on 26 December 2016 for full reimbursement and for his case to be forwarded to the Finance Department. On 16 January 2017 the department replied that Rs. 68,787 was the correct amount under the Rules. The petitioner pointed out that a similarly placed employee, Shrawan Kumar, had received full reimbursement, and relied on the Division Bench decision in Govind Narayan Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13899/2015, decided 20.05.2019). The State’s answer was that the other employee had sought relaxation before submitting his bills, while the petitioner asked only afterwards.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State restrict a government employee’s medical reimbursement, while paying a similarly placed employee in full, only because he sought relaxation after submitting his bills rather than before?
No Rule Required Relaxation First
Justice Sandeep Taneja noted that the hospitalisation, the two stents, the expenditure of Rs. 1,26,407 and the full reimbursement to Shrawan Kumar after relaxation by the Finance Department were all undisputed. The only reason offered for treating the petitioner differently was the timing of his request for relaxation. The Court was not persuaded: “No reason whatsoever has been given in the impugned order dated 16.01.2017,” and the State could not show that the 2013 Rules required a relaxation application before bills were submitted.
In the absence of any such requirement, the Court held, the timing of the request could not justify different treatment. It held that “the respondents cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees,” and that in view of Govind Narayan Sharma the “petitioner is entitled to get reimbursement of the entire amount.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The impugned order of 16 January 2017 gave no reason for refusing to forward the petitioner’s case to the Finance Department.
- The Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 were not shown to require a relaxation request before submission of bills.
- The State cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees; the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the entire amount.
- The remaining medical expenses must be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum will run from the expiry of that period until payment.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Partial reimbursement of cardiac and other costly treatment is a frequent grievance of government employees and pensioners.
- The ruling stops departments from using unwritten procedural requirements to deny equal treatment.
- Built-in interest for delay encourages timely compliance.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Government Employees
- Keep verified bills and apply for full reimbursement and relaxation in writing; ask for your case to be forwarded to the Finance Department.
- If a colleague in a similar situation was paid in full, cite that as a ground of discrimination.
For Counsel
- Demand that the State point to the specific rule it relies on for any procedural bar.
- Cite Govind Narayan Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court and this judgment on full reimbursement and equal treatment.
Key Takeaways
- Treatment at a state hospital was undisputed, and the full bill was held reimbursable.
- No rule requires seeking relaxation before submitting bills.
- Similarly placed employees must be treated alike.
- The balance is payable within three months, with 6% interest for delay.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a government employee in Rajasthan get full reimbursement of medical expenses?
In this case, yes. The High Court held the employee entitled to the entire amount spent on his cardiac treatment at SMS Hospital, as a similarly placed employee had been fully reimbursed.
Must relaxation be sought before submitting medical bills?
The State could not show that the 2013 Medical Attendance Rules contain any such requirement, so the Court rejected this as a ground for partial reimbursement.
What is the deadline for payment?
Three months. If not paid within that period, the petitioner gets 6% annual interest from the expiry of the three months until actual payment.
Conclusion
The judgment is a straightforward application of equality in service matters. When two employees undergo the same treatment and one is paid in full, the State must have a lawful reason, found in the rules, to pay the other less; an unwritten timing requirement is not one.
Practical takeaway: Employees denied full medical reimbursement should seek relaxation, ask for forwarding to the Finance Department, and rely on equal treatment of similarly placed colleagues.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com