Sudha Kaisha vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery to the tune of Rs. 9175/- sought to be made by the fourth Respondent on account of audit objection. The Petitioner was granted permission to seek treatment in the Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. However, it was clarified that charges would be limited to that of PGI of AIIMS. After treatment, all the bills were cleared and the Petitioner was reimbursed actual charges. After five years, audit party made objection to the effect that room charges and some other incidental expenses as shown in Annexure A-1 are not permissible in terms of the sanction given to her.

We are afraid that the stand taken cannot be appreciated. When the Petitioner is permitted to have treatment in the medical college, for the only reason that charges in the Medical College vary from the charges in the PGI or AIIMS, it is highly unreasonable to hold that only the charges that are payable for treatment in PGI or AIIMS would be payable unless there is a case for the Respondents that such amounts are spent not for the treatment. That is not the case. It is only a case that the rates are higher than that of PGI or AIIMS. The issue is squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Mohinder Singh Chawala, etc.,

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed.