Shivanand Basayya Hiremath vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(Per M.S. Karnik, J.)

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for following substantive relief :-

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at the respondent No.5 – school on 3^rd June 1996. The said appointment was approved by the respondent No.4 – Education Oicer (Primary), Z.P. Solapur vide order dated 16^th June 1997. The petitioner’s son Abhijeet, aged 17 years, was sufering from Acute Mixed Phenotypic Leukemia. Hence, he was admitted for treatment at Lata Mangeshkar Foundation’s Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital and Research Centre, Erandwane, Pune on 19^th January 2018. The said hospital is one of the Hospitals recognized by State Government for the purpose of medical treatment for above referred illness and also for reimbursement of expenditure incurred by concerned employee for such medical treatment. Unfortunately, Abhijeet passed away on 22^nd February 2018. During the aforesaid period, the petitioner spent Rs. 18,03,237/- for medical treatment, including indoor admission, treatment, medicines etc.

As per the policy of the State Government, the medical expenditure incurred by the Government employees for themselves and their family members in private Hospitals is liable to be reimbursed. The said scheme is also made applicable to employees like the petitioner, working in Government aided institutions. The petitioner submitted the bills which were received from said Hospital to Headmistress of the respondent No.5 – school and sought reimbursement of the amount spent on medical treatment. The Headmistress submitted the bills to the respondent No.4 – Education Oicer along with all necessary documents for sanctioning the same on 26^th December 2018. The Civil Surgeon, Solapur issued a letter dated 2^nd March 2019 to the respondent No.4 and informed that the illness for which petitioner’s son was treated, is covered by the Government Resolution dated 19^th March 2005 issued by the State Government. 4. The respondent No.4 sought report and information from Block Education Oicer, Panchayat Samiti, Barshi vide communication dated 10^th April 2019 regarding the claim of reimbursement made by the petitioner. The Block Education Oicer submitted a report on 4^th May 2019 informing the respondent No.4 that the petitioner’s son was admitted as an indoor patient in the said Hospital and for above mentioned period, for treatment of Acute Mixed Phenotypic Leukemia under Dr. Melankari, and hence there is no objection for taking further action on his medical bills. The respondent No.4, therefore on 11^th June 2019 recommended to respondent No.3 to take further action for reimbursement of Rs.18,03,237/- by referring to the aforesaid certiicate issued by Civil Surgeon.

The respondent No.3 by communication dated 7^th October 2019, directed the respondent No.4 to re-submit the proposal after complying with the deiciency as mentioned therein viz. re-submit the same along with the list in respect of expenditure incurred. Accordingly, compliance was made by the respondent No.3, and on 16^th September 2020, the proposal was re-submitted annexing the necessary documents. The respondent No.3 forwarded the recommendatory report to the respondent No.2 on 24^th November 2020 for reimbursement of the amount. However, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 23^rd April 2021 and rejected proposal, on the ground that the said illness of petitioner’s son is not included in the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23^rd March 2021 in this petition.

We have heard learned AGP. A request was made by the learned AGP for some more time to ile aidavit-in-reply. We, however, ind that the notice in this petition was issued as far back as on 10^th August 2023 and the same was made returnable on 3^rd November 2023. No aidavit-in-reply has been iled so far by the respondent. In any case, having regard to the materials on record, in our opinion, aidavit-in-reply is not necessary to decide the controversy.

Learned AGP argued in support of the impugned order. It is submitted that respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order has correctly recorded that the said illness of the petitioner’s son is not included in the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005. Our attention is invited by the learned AGP to the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005 to submit that what is covered is the serious illness of blood cancer. It is submitted that present is not a case, where there is deinite certiication that the petitioner’s son was sufering from blood cancer.

We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent – State and Mr. Deokar for the respondent No.5 – Management.

Having heard learned counsel and after perusing the entire material on record, we have no hesitation in allowing this petition for the reasons hereinafter. In the irst instance, we ind that the Civil Surgeon by a communication dated 2^nd March 2019, has clearly informed that the illness for which the petitioner’s son was treated is included in the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005. The Civil Surgeon, who was competent to issue the certiicate, having clearly observed that the illness of Acute Mixed Phenotypic Leukemia is covered by the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005, there was no reason to doubt such an expert opinion, no less than the Civil Surgeon working with the Civil Hospital, Solapur who is appointed by the State Government. Moreover, even the Block Education Oicer of the Panchayat Samiti has submitted a report dated 4^th May 2019 that the petitioner’s son was admitted as an indoor patient in the said Hospital and for the above mentioned period for treatment of Acute Mixed Phenotypic Leukemia under Dr. Melankari and hence, recommended that there is no objection for taking further action on his medical bills.

In such view of the matter, when the respondent No.4 recommended to the respondent No.3 to take further action, whereupon the respondent No.3 re-submitted the proposal after efecting necessary compliance to the respondent No.2 to reimburse the amount, there was no reason why the respondent No.2 should have rejected the proposal on the ground that the said illness of the petitioner’s son is not included in the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005. In the communication dated 14^th June 2021, which is the impugned order, the Deputy Director has made a mention that a committee has been constituted for the purpose of reimbursement and the said committee has opined that the said illness does not fall within the parameters of the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005. We also ind from the G.R. dated 19^th March 2005 that even blood-related illness is also included in the category of serious illness. The illness of the petitioner’s son is even otherwise blood-related. The impugned communication does not record any reason why the Committee difered from the opinion of the Civil Surgeon or raised any doubt as regards the competency of the Civil Surgeon to issue the Medical Certiicate.

In this case, the petitioner has already faced the greatest loss a parent can sufer - the loss of his young child, who was only 17 years old. The petitioner did everything he could for the treatment of his son. He spent a large amount of money towards the hospitalization in proceeding treatment for his child. A parent in such a helpless situation does everything possible for his child. The very object of the Government Resolution dated 19^th March 2005 is to make sure that Government and aided-school employees do not face inancial hardship while seeking life-saving treatment for themselves or their family members. Denying reimbursement in such a sensitive and deserving case would go against the spirit of the G.R., for this would only add to the pain and hardship already sufered by the petitioner. The expenditure incurred was neither optional nor extravagant, but an inevitable attempt to save a young life. To deny reimbursement in such a situation would amount to compounding the grief and inancial burden of a parent who has already sufered the heartbreaking loss of a child at a very young age.

In a welfare State, the implementing authorities are expected to adopt a fair, just, and humane approach, particularly when the competent medical authority - the Civil Surgeon has certiied that the illness is covered under the G.R. and when all subordinate authorities have recommended reimbursement.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have therefore no hesitation in allowing this petition, and the same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). No order as to costs.

The claim be reimbursed within a period of 8 weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @9% p.a. till realization.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.