Manik Ghosh vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who is the Assistant Teacher working under the Directorate of Elementary Education.

[2] According to the petitioner, he is entitled to medical reimbursement of expenses that incurred for treatment of his spouse treatment under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 which has been adopted in the State of Tripura. The petitioner has asserted that his wife, namely Gita Kar was suffering some serious cardiac ailment and was referred by the standing Medical Board, G.B. P. Hospital to the CMC, Vellore for better management of her treatment. The referal certificate dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is made part of this writ petition.

[3] After the treatment was over, the petitioner raised the medical bill of Rs.68,434.85 and TA Bill of Rs.22,110.61 as the form No.49 of the said Medical Attendance Rules. The bills were forwarded by the letter dated 25.10.2017 to the competent authority, the Head of the office and DDO (Elementary Education Directorate) which authority, by the letter dated 03.01.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) communicated the District Education Officer that the petitioner is not entitled to get reimbursement of the medical bills. But no reason except that bare statement was given in the said communication.

[4] Later on, by letter dated 20.02.2017 F.3(31)/ACCTT/IS-A/2018/2543 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the Headmaster of Joy Sundari J. B. School where the petitioner is posted, had however informed that the Finance Department by their memorandum No.F.5(10)-Fin(G)/75-1 dated 09.08.2005 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) has regretted to allow the medical reimbursement bills. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said action, has filed this writ petition.

[5] Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not show from the CCS (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 that the petitioner is entitled to get reimbursement. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel has contended in the alternative that by the memorandum No.F.5(10)-Fin(G)/75-1 dated 09.08.2005, the petitioner is covered to get medical reimbursement for the expenses for purpose of treatment. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel has referred to Clause 2 A (i) of the said memorandum dated 09.08.2005 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) which reads as under:

2A (i) When a Group C Group-D Government employee himself/herself suffering from disease other than cancer is referred to Medical Institution/ Hospitals to which he/she is referred to, the cost of treatment in that Institution/Hospital excluding the cost of journey is admissible for reimbursement. The benefit is not admissible in respect of any member of the family of such a Government employee.

[6] Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any medical reimbursement even in terms of the clause 2 A (i) of the memorandum dated 09.08.2005. For that reason, the medical reimbursement bills were regretted. It is apparent thus that the solitary controversy as raised in the wit petition hinges on the question whether the wife of the petitioner is entitled to get reimbursement or not. The petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of Elementary Education. There is no controversy in that regard. Clause 2 A (i) of the memorandum dated 09.08.2005 is unambiguous. It clearly provides that When a Group C/Group-D Government employee himself/herself suffering from disease other than cancer, is referred to Medical Institution/ Hospitals, the cost of treatment in that Institution/Hospital but excluding the cost of journey, is admissible for reimbursement. Such benefit is not admissible or extended in respect of any member of the family of a Government employee.

[7] The said policy of the Government has not been challenged in this writ petition. In view of the specific provision as referred above, this writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.

However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.