High CourtsDivision Bench(2013) 11 RAJ CK 0083

The State of Rajasthan and Another vs Smt. Kamla Rani Jain

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 18 November 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J · Ajay Rastogi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 948 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 342 words
1.

This intra-court appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 3rd May, 2011 directing the appellants to reimburse the medical bills of the respondent-petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent employee is a retired teacher and took medical treatment at Escort Heart Hospital, New Delhi and submitted medical bills for reimbursement in the office of the appellants with the prayer to reimburse medical bills to the extent of permissible under the law. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the judgment of this Court reported in Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 3rd May, 2011 directing the appellants to reimburse the medical bills including the medical expenses incurred by the respondent employee for the treatment.

2.

It has come to the notice of the Court that the medical bills of the respondent were reimbursed in terms of the order of learned Single Judge dated 3rd May, 2011.

3.

Counsel for the appellants submits that later view of the Apex Court is that one is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills in terms of the Rules and actual reimbursement, if not permissible under the law, cannot be reimbursed and in support of his submission cited judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma,

4.

We find that in the case, where medical reimbursement was made the Apex Court while laying down the law, at least not permitted in granting liberty to the State to recover the alleged excess amount, if paid to the retired personnel.

5.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we may not like to interfere in the order of learned Single Judge, since the medical bills have been reimbursed by the appellants, but at the same time we would like to hold that the judgment may not be cited as a precedent. Accordingly, special appeal stands dismissed with the observations indicated above.