Kumari Rina vs The Eastern Coal Field Ltd. and Others

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.9.2003 by which the claim of the petitioner to reimburse the medical bill incurred in course of treatment of her son for undergoing Cochlear implantation at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi has been rejected.

The submission has been made on behalf the petitioner that the son of petitioner was suffering from total loss of hearing. After consulting the doctor of the hospital of the management the medical superintendent vide order dated 14.10.2003 had referred the case of the petitioner for specialized treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. For that purpose, the petitioner was also allowed a sum of Rs. 2000/- by way of advance but the same was never withdrawn by the petitioner.

The Management of AIMS had furnished an estimate of Rs. 5.20 Lakhs likely to be incurred in undergoing Cochlear implantation. Thereafter, son of petitioner underwent on operation of Cochlear implantation in December, 2003 and for that petitioner had deposited Rs. 5.20 Lakhs with the management of AIMS. In the month of December, 2003 the petitioner thereafter made an application for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred but the same has been rejected vide order dated 10.9.2003.

The grievance of the petitioner is that when she has been referred by the hospital of the management for getting better treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi then she is entitled to get the medical reimbursement of the expenditure incurred in the treatment of her son. It has further been submitted that Northern Coal Field Ltd. had already reimbursed a sum of Rs. 7.40 lakhs to one employee for Cochlear implantation. In support thereof a letter No. AFM:NGH:2002-03:20 of Dy. Finance Manager (cash) Nigahi Project dated 12.4.2002 has been annexed as annexure 6 in this writ petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Eastern Coal Field Limited has filed counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that as per the definition of treatment given in the Eastern Coal Field Limited, it does not include Cochlear Implantation. It has further been submitted that on perusal of the letter dated 5.3.2002 it is evident that no such type of case has been referred for treatment by the authority and there is nothing regarding such treatment in the CIL MAT Rules as such the management has taken decision regarding non-reimbursement of the expenditure incurred in the medical treatment of son of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority and the claim of the petitioner was found not in accordance with CIL MAT Rules. Therefore the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

After hearing the parties at length, the petitioner''s son however has been treated at the AIIMS and certain amount has been incurred in the treatment of her son. From perusal of the statement made by the respondent-Management in the counter-affidavit and as per the definition of treatment which does not include Cochlear Implantation and as such the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

Since there is no provision of medical reimbursement on the treatment of the deceased employee from which the son of the petitioner was suffering, hence no such direction can be issued in this regard in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 because the power under Article 226 can only be invoked for the vested legal right.

So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the employee working in the Northern Coal Field Ltd. has been given the benefit of medical reimbursement is concerned, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit on that ground due to reason that principle of equity will not be attracted if any thing wrong has been done by the authority concerned.

In this context judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and Others Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, , needs to be referred wherein Apex Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. If some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief. At Para 8 Hon''ble Apex Court held:-

"8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible............." 10. The petitioner fails to satisfy this Court that as per CIL MAT Rules, the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement and the disease from which son of the petitioner was suffering is within the purview of the said rules. Hence, in absence of any provision in CIL MAT Rules, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.