STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 02-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
_..,. 
, 
, 
·'[2011) 3 S.C.R 489 
STATE OF· RAJASTHAN · 't 
· ·· • 
V. 
MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2278 of 2011) 
· MARCH 2, 2011 
... "· 
[J.M. PANCHAL. AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] . . 
. 
' 
. . 
' 
"· -' 
" 
A 
B 
Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 
1970: rr. 6 and 7 ·- Employee of Rajasthan District Court got 
operated for heart siJrgery_in.Esoorts Heart Institute, New Delhi C 
. - Claim for re-imbursemerit Of medical expenses - Held: He 
is entitled to medical expenses to a limited extent permissible 
in the rules - High Court erred in granting full re-imbursement 
by relying upon r. 7 since it cannot be said that treatment for 
heart surgery was not available in State of Rajasthan. 
D 
The respondent was an employee in the District 
Court at Balotra, Rajaf:>than. He had gone to Uttaranchal 
on leave where he suffered a heart ailment. On his way 
back to Balotra, he got admitted in the Escort Heart 
Institute in New Delhi and was operated for by-pass 
E 
surgery. He claimed reimbursement of the full medical 
expenses from the State of Rajasthan. The State 
Government accepted his request to a limited extent and 
granted him reimbursement upto an amount of Rs. 
50,0001· which was permissible as per the Rajasthan Civil 
F 
Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970. Aggrieved, 
the respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by 
. the High Court and full re-lmbursement was granted. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the G 
appellant that 'the High Court had erred In relying upon 
Rule 7 as against Rule 6 thereof; Rule 6 applies to a 
situation where an employee goes outside the Sta.te and 
falls sick; and Rule 7 deals with a situation where a 
489 
H 
,. , 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 
A Government servant Is not in a position to obtain the 
necessary medical treatment for the disease In the State 
of Rajasthan which Is a different situation and In which 
case he Is permitted the treatment in the hospitals 
mentioned In Appendlx-11 of the Rules. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services 
(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 deals with treatment of 
a disease for which treatment Is not available In the State 
C of Rajasthan.·Certalnly It cannot be contended and It Is 
not so contended by the respondent that treatment for 
heart surgery is not available in the State of Rajasthan. 
Rule 7(1) lttelf points out that such Institute can be 
0 approached for surgery but only for which treatment le 
not available In Rajasthan. The High Court erred In relying 
upon Rule 7(1) and in granting full reimbursement of the 
expenses which were incurred by the employee 
concerned while taking treatment In the Escorts Heart 
Institute, Delhi. The Government has formulated 
E necessary rules permitting the reimbursement of medical 
expenses In certain situations and upto a certain limit. 
The Government has been reimbursing the necessary 
expenditure as permitted by the rules uniformly. It will, 
therefore, not be proper for a Government employee or 
F for his relatives to claim reimbursement of medical 
expenees otherwise than what was provided In the RulM. 
However, the respondent has already been paid the 
amount which wae directed under the Judgment of Single 
G Judge of the High Court and that the respondent has 
subsequently retired from the service. The 
relmburetment was done In view of the then prevalent 
Interpretation of the relevant rules in *Shanlcarllal'• c•••· 
In the facts and circumstances of the case, th• appellant 
H 
--
--
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MAHESH "KUMAR 
.. 
. . 
. . SHARMA.. 
. ' ; 
. . 
491 
goverrnrtent Y,111 not recover 'the amount .which hai been. 
A. 
paid to the respondent, nor will the government recover 
any amount which has been similarly paid to other 
employees seeking such medical reimbursement under 
*Shankarlal's judgment which was prevalent so far. 
[Paras 7, 8 and 10] [493-E-G; 494-F-G; 495-B·D] 
B 
Shankarial v. State of Rajasthan 2000 3 WLC (Raj.) 585 
.:.. overruled. 
· · 
State of Punjab and Others v. Ram Lubhaya Baggs and C 
Othera (1998) 4 SCC 117 - referred to. 
, . 
Case Law .Reference: 
2000 3· WLC .(Raj.) 685 overruled 
(1998) 4 sec 117 
referred to 
Para 5 
Para 8 
O 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2278 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.09.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajastha at Jodhpur in 0.8. Civil Special 
E 
Appeal No. 749 of 2007. 
Dr. Manis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.