Subrata Kr. Pal v. The State Of Tripura And ORS

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
TRIPURA
A
G
A
R
T
A
L
A
W.P(C)
No.22
of
2015
Dr.
Subrata
Kumar
Pal,

 


 

              
 



 


 

 !

" 
# #Petitioner
-
V
e
r
s
u
s
-
1.
The
State
of
Tripura,
  

"

  $   

 %

 $ "    &  '(    !

"  ) *

  " + ,

 
!

" -)./00112 2.
The
Director
of
Health
Services,

'(  !

" )   " + ' 3
  ,  
 !

"  -) /00112 3.

The
Superintendent,
- '

 &
"

  

 

   
 
!

" -)./00114 4.

The
Secretary,

5  "   '(    !

"  ) *

  " + ,  
 !

"  -)./00112  ##### Respondents
B
E
F
O
R
E
THE
HON'BLE
MR.
JUSTICE
S.
TALAPATRA
5  "   :


 ,6 , (   5  
" 
 :


) ,  ( 

    :
78 7149

  ( $ :23.11.2015
: ; 

   " :

YES NO

√

 JUDGMENT
&
ORDER
6$  
  
 *  "    "   
         
" 
  *  


 
   +  427<979%. = "
 +  
 !* $ 5  
 !* $ 5( >        
 *   $          9817 9?   
 *    
  

 "  
      !  "   

      
  
 
* 
@0A"

    
  


   [2] ! 

"  "  
*     
   
 
    

(
=    > 
40<<
 "  *
             '

 .--  !

"  & 

(
    
    81 1< 714<  (      

 
*  "
$ "   "
( ! "  
   
 "3 
*    !    &
"             (  
 

" *  "      
 !   6   '(    !

" 

       *      &!3 "3 3   (
    
   
   (
    



 *   (    
   
   "  B
 *  *
 

    

  

 4/ 711/ "  B
*    


 
"  6   C  - ---          
 
  *
  (    
 
"  D(   
  $ *
  (     

    =ED> ! "  *
"   3 
*  !  &
" D(   
"  
 $ *
  (
 
   3
*   &,)&
"   
      *   

 *
 

  ! "  
   
 

    +   ?1191%. *  C   
   

   & 

(
 '(    !

"   *  
   
  
 = >   "   

  !

 
  88771%.
""   $  

 $  
 ! 
 !

  *

   "   

 6     
  *

  $   "  *
        
   

 "  *
     $  

 
"  

 ""

(     5  "  
 3 
*   
 

 *
 *  +" 

(   

   

 "       $  & !3 "3

 !      & 

(
 $        1?

1< 7110 C
  !


 $  "$  




 
 "  
 
$ 


"   (
      - ( *    '(     ) ? *     "  


 $       6        (
   & !3 "3       
$( 
  
"
 (      +  $    & !3 "3         %(
 +" 

 * (  
 *  *   "   
*

  "$  *
      " 

    *     "   *

$    *  
 * *
 "




  
    
    
"  " 
(    " ! "  
 
      !  +"

  :
)
&  (
 *  "   3  

    !    &
"           
 
  !  "  3    (  4< 711048 ! *    *
   "

 

  

  *
  "$
$"

      " "
        6      
      
    "  B
 *  *
    "

   
   78 -
   "

 
* (      !

"   5 
    
    +" 

     "

   47 7110  42 7110   " 
   
 

8771/?

?7 *   

 $




  
 !  "   

  8= >
"    6
 89??8%.   5:
&
"   877/9%.         !    &
" *  4191%.
 
   .$
 !
  "     8047?2 ?7  6 
  7/787<%. *

  (   "       +  44?027 ?7*
   1?

7141   "  
          +  

707/77%.
  +" 




     72 1/ 7141 "  
*


   
      E            !  
  

   +" 



  E   71/?2 9?

6
 49<?<%.*

 " "    

71/?2 9?

 !  "   

     
   
 
  21%.
  <41%.    
 $     
      
   4091%.  //1%. 
   8<49%. 

4899%.
" ( $  !
   "   
       

   9817 9?

    "  B
 *    *
 

 &
"
  (

 *     :
3 &
" 
        
 <4249 91 *

 81 6 

 





    7/ 7141   "  B
 *  (  

$  *
      6  -
   $ ! "    
* (     (  "$  (   +    $  (   *      $

  
*  " "   

"

  17  ! 
 "

 *
 $  *  $   "

  -'&
"* $"
( $   [3]  4< 7147   "  B
 *  *


 $     6  !  &
"  

 $(
   6 "  B
*         
        D   !    &
"      "   
  *  " 



 "  ""

 
      5    +" 

 
 

    "

   
    ?4/79/ 91 ! "  

     
    7?<407%.**

"  " 
 
!

* $ *   
        & 

(
 $     "

   -' 
"  17  6$       49 1/ 7148

 + .%71 * "     & 

(
      "

  -'
"  




 ""    
 *  "  *
     
"
!   
   "  

 "  *

3 
  
 
 
"*
  *

"  $ 
  $   
"  $   14 7148  

     
 

811?<1%. 

27/?47%.        & 

(
 '(    !

"  !

*  *  $   "

   -' 
"  19  !
 
 *       !  
  "


  74 1?

714<  + .

%78 * " 7< 714<    & 

(
 '(   !

"    19 7147       & 

(
 '(   !

"    
  7/787<%. 
     2?<11?%.       
 *   
    ! 
*

    ( $ "  
,  6 $    *  "   
   7/787<%. *
 

 
3
"

 "

 &   
  
* "   [4]
! 
" 
 $      ( ( 
     * 
   707/77%. 

71/?2 9?*  ( $     & 

(
  * 
 49<?<%. *

  
    

71/?2 9?  707/77%.
$*  




        & 

(
 
    *
 
  * "

 !
 
 *
     
 
""
 
 *8= > 
 !  
 $     *
 81 1<  !
    *
    
   
 *  
     
    
  1?

7141  +" $  2=
+> 
   ?    44      

(
 =    > 
 40<<     

" 
 
            
 6 
 "

(
 
 (       44
   ?      

(
=    > 
40<< ! 


   "

(

 F "(8) The
standing
committee
may,
if
it
is
satisfied
that
in
the
interest
of
the
Govt.
servant
or
the
member
of
his
family
obtaining
treatment
abroad
it
is
essential
so
to
do,
recommend
one
attendant
to
accompany
the
Government
servant
or
the
member
of
his
family,
as
the
case
may
be,
and
the
expenditure
so
incurred
shall
also
be
eligible
for
reimbursement."
! 
"

(

 ""   + 
 



[5]



 
    

811?<1%. 

27/?47%. 
 
     
" 
 (   
 $     & 

(
6 !


 $

   




  !


 $*

    * 
!       & 

(
 






   5  "   ""

(   
    ! 
" 
( 


 
 


."$    "$ 
 F "There
is
no
claim
of
M.R
Bill
amounting
to
Rs.6,84,008/D
is
received
by
the
office
of
the
Directorate
of
Health
Services.
So
question
of
payment
of
that
bill
does
not
arise.
It
is
mentioned
here
that
the
claim
of
the
petitioner
amounting
to
Rs.3,91,286.82
(Rs.3,22,078.82
+
Rs.35,883/D
+
Rs.32,275/D
+
Rs.1,050/D),
the
authority
after
examination
sanctioned
Rs.2,72,324/D.
It
is
further
submitted
that
the
claim
amount
of
Rs.6,27,812/D
submitted
on
01.10.2013
has
been
examined.
After
examination
of
the
bill,
it
has
come;
a
sum
of
Rs.2,92,842/D
as
admissible
as
per
rates
of
TATA
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
and
the
same
was
submitted
on
24.12.

2014
by
the
office
of
the
Director
of
Health
Services
to
the
Finance
Department
for
concurrence,
but
not
yet
returned.

In
several
occasion,
the
petitioner
submitted
his
claim
amulgating
two
bills
in
a
same
bills
of
different
hospitals
which
were
returned
to
the
petitioner
to
submit
the
bill
properly.
It
is
to
be
mentioned
here
that,
the
wife
of
the
petitioner
treated
in
different
hospitals
of
India
without
referring
by
the
Standing
Medical
Board
in
several
occasions
and
submitted
bills
for
the
same
but
no
bill
was
returned
without
sanctioned
stating
that
patient
was
not
referred
by
the
Medical
Board.
The
authority
has
sympathetically
considered
and
accorded
sanctioned
which
are
covered
by
the
M.R.
Rule.

On
examination
and
scrutiny
of
M.R.

Bill,
the
authority
sanctioned
Rs.2,72,324/D
on
03.06.2012
to
the
petitioner
as
admissible
as
per
C.G.H.S.
rate
for
the
treatment
of
the
wife
of
the
petitioner.
Director
of
Health
Services,
Government
of
Tripura
sanctioned
on
06.11.2011
for
the
treatment
of
the
petitioner
amounting
to
Rs.15,484/D.
Further,
Director
of
Health
Services,
Government
of
Tripura
sanctioned
on
16.12.2014
amounting
to
Rs.3,00,840/D
for
the
treatment
at
Lilabati
Hospital
&
Tata
Memorial
Hospital,
Mumbai
and
on
15.08.2015
amounting
to
Rs.2,92,842/D
for
the
treatment
at
T.M.




 the
treatment
of
the
wife
of
the
petitioner
(AnnexureDR/1
series)."


 [6] ! $(   

   
.49;42   (
 F "15.........The
wife
of
the
petitioner
was
referred
by
the
Standing
Medical
Board
on
17.10.2007
to
Thakur
Pukur,
Kolkata
but
the
petitioner
treated
his
wife
in
Mumbai
which
is
permissible
and
expenditure
incurred
is
admissible
as
per
rates
of
referral
Hospital.
The
patient
should
be
undertake
treatment
within
6th
month
from
the
date
of
refer
dated
17.10.2007.
In
the
instant
case,
the
wife
of
the
petitioner
was
treated
in
the
month
of
2009
i.e.
after
2(two)
years
from
the
date
of
refer
without
further
refer
by
the
Standing
Medical
Board.

After
completion
of
treatment,
the
petitioner
submitted
MR
claim
of
Rs.3,22,078/D
to
the
authority
for
sanctioning
his
claim.
On
examination
and
scrutiny
of
MR
Bill,
the
authority
sanctioned
Rs.2,72,324/D
on
03.06.2012
to
the
petitioner
as
admissible
as
per
C.G.H.S
rate
besides,
the
treatment
done
in
Mumbai
(Lilabati
&
Tata
Memorial
Hospital)
are
not
available
in
the
referral
Hospital.

The
expenditures
approved
as
per
C.G.H.S.
rates
instead
of
referral
Hospital
which
was
as
per
Rules.
So,
it
is
denied
that
the
petitioner's
is
entitling
the
remaining
amount
at
Rs.1,18,962.82.
The
rules
are
applicable
to
all
and
all
are
equal
in
the
eye
of
law.
The
petitioner's
claim
is
not
exceptional
his
claim
has
been
settled
according
to
rules.

16.

That,
the
statements
made
in
ParagraphD 17
of
the
writ
petition
the
answering
respondents
state
that,
the
MR
claim
of
Rs.2,92,722/D
was
received
by
the
respondents.
On
examination,
it
reveals
that,
the
petitioner
submitted
his
claim
to
the
authority
on
08.11.2010
whereas
the
treatment
duration
was
w.e.f.
23.01.2010
to
30.04.2010
i.e.
bill
for
an
amount
of
Rs.2,92,722/D
was
submitted
by
the
petitioner
after
7
months
which
is
not
admissible
as
per
sub
Rule
8
of
Rule
11
of
Central
Services
(Medical
Attendance)
Rules,
1944.



 returned
on
11.05.2015
(vide
AnnexureD R/3).
So,
the
statement
made
by
the
petitioner
is
denied
by
the
respondents."



[7] ! $ ( 
       .4?      (
 

*$ $( "   
  
 71/?2 9?F G18.
....
on
being
refer
by
the
Standing
Medical
board,
the
wife
of
the
petitioner
was
under
taken
treatment
in
Vellore
and
thereafter
the
petitioner
submitted
his
medical
claim
amounting
to
Rs.20,786.58
to
the
Directorate
of
Health
Services.
On
examination
of
the
said
bill/claims,
the
authority
has
sanctioned
an
amount
of
Rs.15,484/D.
The
sanction
order
dated
06.11.2011
as
admissible
amounts
as
per
rate
of
referral
Hospital.

In
this
light,
it
is
also
stated
that
the
petitioner
has
no
dues
on
the
said
claim
as
the
amount
sanctioned
which
is
admissible
and
according
to
the
rate
of
referral
Hospital.
The
sanction
order
dated
06.11.2011
(AnnexureDR/1
series)
as
admissible
amounts
as
per
rate
of
referral
Hospital.
In
this
light
it
is
also
stated
that
the
petitioner
has
no
dues
on
the
said
claim
as
the
amount
sanctioned
which
is
admissible
according
to
the
rate
of
referral
Hospital."

 (   
 2?<11?%.

!   
C
*
    [8] !  "   
 8047?2 ?7 *
     7/787<%. 
        .42    * "  !
 
   "  
   

2?<11?%.   

" 

 

7/787<%.




 ! 
" 
(  










  
 $       27/?47%.
   7148 
   +     + 
 

707?<7%.*
"


 
"


!   
"  


"  
 
    
  

 5  "   

 
 

 
$   (   [9]


 )  ,      
 ""      

" 
 

      (     (  
   
 (*(
  "

, 
      
        
   ! 
  
 
   " "
  F Sl.
No.

Date
of
submission
of
bill(s)

Amount
Claim(s)

Date
of
Treatment
Name
of
Hospital
4 7< 7141

89??8%. 7110 5 :
 &
"   7110 7 7147

7?<407%. 7110  1< 7141  &
"  8 7< 7141

877/9%. 7110  1/ 7110 !    &
" < 7< 7141

4191%. 1?

7141  4/ 7110


  &
"  9 1?

7141

707/77%. 7141  1< 7141

&, )&
"  D+ "        2?<11?%.  

" 
(  
$, 
 






       
" 
 
*
  ( 
   ( $     & 

(
 [10]

-   ,    "   
     
 (      "

  $   
  *

   
    
  
    
 
 2?<11?%.  $
    
 , 
 

  772    
  -  -   ,  + " 3  

    
  (  
   
"    
 
 "

(  $  
" 
 D(    C
 $   +" 

 

 $   "         
 *      
           +     +" 

  * (    

   

 
"    "  B
 *  *
    


"  [11]



 , 6 ,     
 ""       "   
 "$
       
  
$  
*
   
   D(  

 

 ""   
)
1/1?10;47   $ 

" 
 (     "    " 

 !

" 3
 ( * 
 











 [12]

5     
  

 )  ,      
 *   



    *   (  
    (
    <4249 91
 81 7147*

  ( $  
" 
 &  

    $   "  
  ( 
  
    
   

921487%.

 !  *   
 
 $   "   
  "



     

(
=    > 
 40<<  *   "$ 
 (     '(     ) ?

! 

   
 
 
   '(   "$  !  "        * 


   
*  [13]

&( ""

   



   $      
   

 
 ( *   
            *    

          
 *     
  &  
 $     
 '(    ) ?
 $    "  
* 
 (  *
  (    
  !  "$  *  

   **(          *
 (    

 
"  6  
     *$      71/?2 9? 
       49<?<%. $  
      42 7144 
 
   "    (         













"E   
*
 
   +"  

 
   
     
"  &   
   
    ( *   

" 
  
$$  
  71/?2 9?      
" 
       "$       9817 9?

    ,    
  $
 
     
 


  (   
  '(     ) ? 
   
      *
     
   $  (  
     6


(



**
   "$ 
 *     
 $    "    
 5  "  


 ( $ " "  *"

 
    *    "  
      "$  
      

 $    5  "   '(   !

"   

" ) <  

 $ '(   !

"  &  ; 5$  "          & 

(
 
" ) 
  
  

 


( 
"
  

  
  * 8= > 
 
      $      ) 70.<1%2?.

   49 402? 
     7?

40/1 6$   )

4<178=4>%6%/<.   1?

40/<  
   
(          
     "

    
  
 $









   
 *

""  $

  ( %
  
    *      $     )

4<179%77%/?.     48 1?

40?4   * 
 
( 
C  *$B
" 

   

 F (9)
Heads
of
Departments
delegated
powers
to
condone
delay
in
submission
of
claims:
(a)


-
As
per
existing
instructions,
all
cases
where
the
claims
are
submitted
after
three
months
have
to
be
referred
to
the
Ministry
of
Health
for
relaxation
and
condonation
of
delay.
It
has
since
been
decided
that
delay
beyond
three
months
in
submissions
of
the
medical
claims
may
be
condoned
by
the
Ministries/Departments
of
the
Central
Government/Comptroller
and
AuditorDGeneral
of
India,
etc.

subject
to
the
following
:
(i)
Each
individual
case
seeking
condonation
of
delay
in
submission
of
medical
claims
will
be
considered
by
the
controlling
authorities/administrative
authorities
on
merit
particularly
keeping
in
view
the
need
to
prevent
malpractices.
After
giving
reasonable
opportunity
to
the
Government
employee,
the
controlling
authorities
will
be
free
to
reject
the
medical
claims
when
they
are
not
convinced
of
the
reasons
for
delay
involved
in
the
submission
of
the
claims.

(ii)
It
will
be
open
to
the
Controlling/Administrative
Ministers/the
Comptroller
and
AuditorDGeneral
of
India
to
lay
down
monetary
limits
of
the
medical
claims
and
the
period
up
to
which
delay
can
be
condoned
at
various
levels,
it
being
ensured
that
no
case
relating
to
condonation
of
delay
is
agreed
to
at
a
level
lower
than
the
Head
of
a
Department.

(iii)
The
treatment
has
been
obtained
from
authorized
medical
attendant/recognized
hospital/dispensary/clinic
etc.
under
the
CS
(MA)
Rules,
1944
and
orders."






- 
               


(  

 $ 
 $& '( -


 

 $ "  & 5$  
   
 *    $


  
        
     $        ""


   "  (        



   * "  5 
 " "
 "  

"

  $ "

 

 

 *  *
"

(     
* "

    + 

( $   "   *  "

    
   $  -    
     
 "

  
    
 
 "

*
( $
 $ 

 $ '( !

"  "  & ;5$





( 

* " 
 *   + 
 (  ! 
   


  JUDGE