Kapoor Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
!
"# $!%&'&"() * * + , -"".
/&(01 *** ! & &"(!.
2'* / !
"# 3(4 5 ($ " 1!.'
*** !'-"($!( '
) 67
* /
!
"
# $$$$$$$
8 * 7
%
""&'""( ) *
% certiorari + , + "- . "."/ 6
% mandamus +
+
:
"
; inter alia, +
+
+ )< = ! !+ +
6
> +
% + ; )
+
+
! +
% + "5 .8 "."5 %
1 "# .8 "."5
! 2 >
4 ".5....'2 %
..8"#&'2 !
( .( "."/ 2#3 ;
2
= !
5 .8 "."/ 2/3 !
+ +
..8."#&'2 +
+ +
+ ;
6+ ) ? )
! , 6+ # Per contra,
"
#
!
+
+ ! ..8"#&'2
' % 6+ )
@ 0supra3 +
+
+ res integra.
& > + ! %
2 *
+
+
!
9
!
"
) *
% + ( A
!+
!
1 :
+ 2 A A
!
+
"
) *
4 + 6+
% B+ ? @! A )
!"
#$ %%# %! + + B %+ "8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H). decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ petitioner to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this Court on 2.2.1994. The other judgments of the High Court following the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's case are :
(1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 decided on 10.5.95 titled K.L.
Kohli v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H);
(2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi Mohan Duggal v. State of Punjab and others (DB)
(3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decided on 4.9.94 titled Prem Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others;
(4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. State of Punjab etc. (SB); and
(5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. State of Punjab and others (SB)
10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India , fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self?preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law...
11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare? facedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to the contrary..."
*
%
>
-
+
%
+ "- . "."/ 6 !
+
> !
+ 1+
..8"#&'2
( .( "."/
+ 7&9
+
%
%
.
*
% % 7-9
! + > +
03
:
;
/ .
"."&
vishnu C +' D'
C
D'