STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus SRI R. VIVEKANANDA SWAMY

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 01-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 905 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SRI R. VIVEKANANDA SWAMY 
(Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2008) 
APRIL 1, 2008 
B 
r 
:J 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
I 
Service Law: 
~ 
Conditions of Service - Medical Benefit Rules, applicable 
in the States of Karnataka and Rajasthan - Interpretation and! c 
or application of - Treatment in non-Government hospital -
Re-imbursement of medical expenses - Entitlement for -
Held: Claim for reimbursement must be made only in terms 
of the Rules and not de hors the same, moreso, when no power 
of relaxation conferred on the authorities - On facts, the State D 
Government sanctioned and reimbursed a part of the medical 
claim -
To do complete justice, Supreme Court, in exercise 
of its jurisdiction under Art. 142 of Constitution, directed State 
Government to pay balance amount - However, this order not 
to be treated as a precedent- Kamataka Government Servants' E 
(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 - Rajasthan Civil Services 
(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 -
Constitution of India, 
1950 - Arts. 142 & 309, proviso. 
Interpretation and/or application of the Medical 
Benefit Rules applicable in the States of Karnataka and 
F 
Rajasthan, i.e. the Karnataka Government Servants' 
(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 and the Rajasthan Civil 
Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 was in 
question in the present two appeals. 
Respondent in the Karnataka case i.e. Respondent G 
No.1 is an officer working in the Office of the Department 
of Commercial Taxes. He underwent 'Coronary Artery' 
Bypass Surgery in Wockhardt Hospital and Heart 
905 
H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A Institute, a non-Government hospital and purportedly 
incurred a sum of Rs.1,50,600/- by way of medical 
·expenses. He claimed re-imbursement thereof, but the 
St;:ite of Karnataka sanctioned and reimbursed only a sum 
of Rs.39,207/-. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed 
s writ petition which was allowed by the Karnataka High 
Court. 
The Rajasthan case relates to 'A', the son of 
Respondent No.2. In 1997, 'A' was referred to AllMS for 
kidney transplantation by the SMS Medical College and 
C Hospital, Jaipur. However, as AllMS showed its inability 
to admit him because of non-availability of bed, 
transplantation of his kidney was carried out in Batra 
Hospital, Delhi, a non-Government hospital. Respondent 
No.2, also an employee of the State, received partial 
D reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred on that 
occass1on. Subsequently 'A' joined the Rajasthan Judicial 
Service in the year 2000 and in February, 2003, got himself 
treated in Batra Hospital, though his case was allegedly 
not referred by the SMS Medical College and Hospital, 
E Jaipur. In May, 2003, he again got himself treated in Batra 
Hospital, Delhi. On 5th July, 2003, SMS Medical College 
and Hospital referred him to AllMS, allegedly subject to a 
ceiling on medical expenses. 'A' obtained treatment in the 
Batra Hospital from 4th July to 29th July, 2003. He died 
F on 7th November, 2003. Respondent No.2 claimed medical 
reimbursement to the tune of Rs.6,52,148/- with interest, 
but only a sum of Rs.75,000/-was sanctioned by the State 
of Rajasthan as being admissible in terms of the Rules. 
Feeling aggrieved, she filed writ petition which was 
G allowed by the High Court of Rajasthan. 
Before this Court, the States of Karnataka and 
Rajasthan contended that having regard to the Rules 
framed by the States, the High Courts of Karnataka and 
Rajasthan committed serious errors in issuing the 
H impugned directions. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. v. SRI R. 
907 
VIVEKANANDA SWAMY 
\ 
Respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that A 
the power of relaxation should have been exercised by 
the appropriate authority judiciously and in a case of this 
nature, Article 14 of the Constitution is attracted. It was 
urged that as a large number of non-Government 
Hospitals are now included in the list of hospitals, the 8 
· 
j 
· impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court should 
not be interfered with. 
Respondent No.2, by taking into account the entire 
factual aspect of the matter, submitted that the judgment 
of Rajasthan High Court was unexceptionable, keeping c 
in view the fact that whatever was required to be paid was 
reimbursement ofthe bills for the month of May-June, 2003 
and the State had already reimbursed the bills for medical 
expenses for February, 2003, July, 2003 and also October, 
2003. It

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.