# Prem Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1198
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 7273 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-kumar-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50851
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Service Law - U.P.Government Servants
(Medical Care) Rules, 2011 - Rules 11 & 16 -
In
present
case,
rejection
of
petitioner's
reimbursement claim on ground that it is not
within time frame as indicated in Rules, 2011 is
contrary to judicial precedents, objection of
opposite parties rejected - CMO's letter verified
and
recommended
petitioner's
medical
reimbursement claim as per rules, said letter did
not mention any defect in format - Therefore, it
does not stand reason that such ground is being
taken for first time by opposite parties in counter
affidavit which has been filed - Since petitioner
submitted original bills and receipts, regarding
reimbursement of claims pertaining to expenses
incurred on treatment of his deceased wife, duly
verified
by
competent
authority,
his
reimbursement claim cannot be rejected on mere
technical ground of format - Thus, two grounds
taken by opposite parties to deny petitioner's
reimbursement claim are unsupported by rules or
precedent - Direction to competent authorities to
pay reimbursement amount to petitioner along
with interest @ 8% per annum from date of CMO's
verification till actual payment. (Para 20 to 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 1 ILRA 1198
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 7273 of 2023

Prem Kumar Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Laxmi Kant Pathak, Jyotindra Prakash
Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - U.P.Government Servants
(Medical Care) Rules, 2011 - Rules 11 & 16 -
In
present
case,
rejection
of
petitioner's
reimbursement claim on ground that it is not
within time frame as indicated in Rules, 2011 is
contrary to judicial precedents, objection of
opposite parties rejected - CMO's letter verified
and
recommended
petitioner's
medical
reimbursement claim as per rules, said letter did
not mention any defect in format - Therefore, it
does not stand reason that such ground is being
taken for first time by opposite parties in counter
affidavit which has been filed - Since petitioner
submitted original bills and receipts, regarding
reimbursement of claims pertaining to expenses
incurred on treatment of his deceased wife, duly
verified
by
competent
authority,
his
reimbursement claim cannot be rejected on mere
technical ground of format - Thus, two grounds
taken by opposite parties to deny petitioner's
reimbursement claim are unsupported by rules or
precedent - Direction to competent authorities to
pay reimbursement amount to petitioner along
with interest @ 8% per annum from date of CMO's
verification till actual payment. (Para 20 to 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs St. of Bihar & ors.
2004 (6) SCC 331, (Para 31)

2. Kailash Vs Nanhku & ors. 2005 (4) SCC 480

3. Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs
U.O.I. & ors. (1995) 3 SCC 42, (Paras 24, 25)

4. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs ESI Corporation
(1996) 2SCC 682, (Para 9)

5. St. of Punjab Vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1994)
4SCC 117

6. Chairman Railway Board Vs Chandrima Das
(2000) 2 SCC 465, (Para 32)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and State counsel for opposite
parties.

2. Instant petition has been filed
seeking a direction to opposite parties for
payment of medical reimbursement to
petitioner amounting to Rs.3,04,935/- as
reimbursement in lieu of expenses incurred
by petitioner for medical treatment of his
wife, Late Smt. Durgawati Dwivedi.

3. It is submitted that petitioner's wife
was employed on the post of Senior
Assistant with the Principal, Government
Polytechnic, Pratapgarh and was suffering
from serious ailment due to which, she
required hospitalisation and treatment but
passed away on 24.09.2021. It is submitted
that after demise of his wife, petitioner
submitted medical claim amounting to
Rs.3,41,029/- as medical reimbursement on
16.03.2022. The claim for reimbursement
and bills annexed thereto were thereafter
forwarded by opposite party no.4 on
28.03.2022 to the Chief Medical Officer,
Pratapgarh for scrutiny and after scrutiny,
the Chief Medical Officer verified the
1 All. Prem Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1199
amount of Rs.3,04,935/- vide letter dated
07.04.2022 but even thereafter, medical
reimbursement of the said amount has not
been made to petitioner, hence present
petition has been filed.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by
opposite parties, it has been stated that
medical reimbursement to petitioner could
not be processed since it was not submitted
within a period of thirty days from
commencement of treatment as required
under
Rule
11
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
(Medical
Care)
Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules of 2011) and that they were not on
the prescribed format given in appendix (C)
and also since it is provided that claim for
reimbursement is required to be made
within
three
months
from
the
date
treatment ends.

5. Learned State Counsel, therefore,
submits that since petitioner's claim not
being in consonance with the aforesaid
Rules of 2011, medical claims of petitioner
could not be processed although no
rejection order has been passed.

6. Upon consideration of submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of material available on record,
it is evident that petitioner's claim for
medical reimbursement has been rejected
on the twin grounds:-

(a)
It
was
not
within
the
stipulated time period;

(b) It was not in the prescribed
format.

7. With regard to the first ground, it
would be necessary to advert to the Rules
of 2011. While Rule 11 indicates
reimbursement pertaining to emergency
treatment of patient, Rule 16 pertains to
reimbursement of medical claims. Rule
11 stipulates that information with regard
to
commencement
of
treatment
is
required to be provided to the concerned
authority as soon as possible, within a
period
of
thirty
days
from
commencement of treatment. Rule 16
operates in a situation where treatment
has already concluded and provides that
claim for reimbursement should be made
as soon as possible, within a period of
three months from the date treatment
ends. The Rules 11 & 16 of Uttar Pradesh
Government Servants (Medical Care)
Rules, 2011 are as follows:

"11. नकस लाभाथी को िाज्य के
भ ति या बाहि तात्कानलक / आपात क्तस्तनथ में
नकस निज नचनकत्सालय में उपचाि प्राप्त कििे
क अिुमन्यता होग । उपचाि क लागत िाज्य
के भ ति उपचाि किािे क दिा में सींजय गाुँर्
स्नातकोिि आयुनवाज्ञाि सींथथाि औि िाज्य से
बाहि क दिा में अक्तखल भाित य आयुनवाज्ञाि
सींथथाि, िई नदल्ल क दिोीं पि प्रनतपूिण य
होग । प्रनतबन्ध यह है नक-

(क) उपचाि नचनकत्सक द्वािा आपात
दिा प्रमानणत क जाए।

(ख) िोग द्वािा अपिे कायाालयाध्यक्ष
को यथािक्य ि घ्र नकन्तु उपचाि प्रािींभ होिे के
नदिाींक से 30 नदिोीं के भ ति सूनचत कि नदया
जाय।

(ग) आपात क्तस्तनथ में एअि एम्बुलेन्स
पि होिे वाले व्यय क र्ििानि भ प्रनतपूिण य
होग । "

"16.
लाभाथी
द्वािा
स्व कताा
प्रानर्काि को, यथािक्य ि घ्र नकींतु उपचाि क
समाक्तप्त के पश्चात त ि माह से अपश्चात परिनिष्ट्
"ग" में नदये गये नवनहप प्रारूप में प्रनतपूनता दावा
प्रस्तुत नकया जायेगा। ब जक के, साथ सन्दभा-
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
पत्र, उपचाि पिामिा पत्रक औि उपचाि
नचनकत्सक द्वािा नवनर्वत् सत्यानपत नकये गये
वाउचि औि परिनिष्ट् "ड" में (बनहिींग उपचाि)
औि परिनिष्ट् "च" (अींतिींग उपचाि) में
अनिवायाता प्रमाण-पत्र मूल रूप में प्रस्तुत नकया
जायेगा। नविेर् परिक्तस्तनथयोीं में दावे को पुष्ट्
कििे के नलए अन्य मूल दस्तावेज भ सींलि नकये
जा सकते हैं। अपूणा वावोीं पि नवचाि िह ीं नकया
जायेगा।

प्रनतबन्ध यह है नक नकस पेंिि भोग
का प्रनतपूनता दावा उस नजले के कायाालयाध्यक्ष को
प्रस्तुत नकया जायेगा जहाुँ से वह पेंिि आहरित
कि िहा है। जहाुँ ऐसा कोई कायाालय ि हो वहाुँ
सम्बक्तन्धत नजले का मनजस्ट्रेि इस प्रयोजिाथा
कायाालयाध्यक्ष औि नवभागाध्यक्ष भ होगा। "

8. The aforesaid rules, therefore,
operate in different fields altogether with
Rule 11 pertaining to reimbursement of
claims regarding expenses incurred in
emergency treatment and Rule 16 pertaining
to situations for reimbursement of treatment
which has already concluded.

9. It is admitted between the parties that
claim made by petitioner even otherwise was
beyond the stipulated time period of three
months as prescribed under Rule 16 of the
Rules of 2011. In such a situation, it would be
necessary to examine as to whether the time
period indicated in Rules 11 and 16 of the
Rules of 2011 are couched in mandatory
terms or are merely directory. A perusal of
both the said rules makes it evident that
medical claims are required to be made 'as far
as possible' within a period for thirty days in
terms of Rule 11 and 'as soon as possible
within a period of three months' as per Rule
16 of the Rules of 2011.

10. The aforesaid wordings in the
Rule 11 and Rule 16 of the Rules of 2011,
therefore, cannot be said to be couched in
mandatory terms since the words 'as far as
possible' and 'as soon possible' by their
very connotation and implication cannot be
termed to be mandatory in nature.

11. The aspect of when a guideline
can be said to be mandatory and directory
in nature has already been interpreted by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of-

(i) Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs.
State of Bihar & Others 2004 (6) SCC
331, the relevant portion of which is quoted
here-in-under:-

"31. The question as to whether a
statute is directory or mandatory would not
depend upon the phraseology used therein.
The principle as regards the nature of the
statute must be determined having regard
to the purpose and object the statute seeks
to achieve."

(ii) Kailash vs Nanhku and
Others 2005 (4) SCC 480, the relevant
portion of which is quoted here-inunder:-

"All the rules of procedure are
the handmaid of justice. The language
employed by the draftsman of processual
law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact
remains that the object of prescribing
procedure is to advance the cause of
justice. In an adversarial system, no party
should ordinarily be denied the opportunity
of participating in the process of justice
dispensation. Unless compelled by express
and specific language of the Statute, the
provisions of the CPC or any other
procedural enactment ought not to be
construed in a manner which would leave
the court helpless to meet extraordinary
situations in the ends of justice. The
observations made by Krishna Iyer, J. in
1 All. Prem Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1201
Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar (1975) 1
SCC 774, are pertinent:-

"The mortality of justice at the
hands of law troubles a Judge's conscience
and points an angry interrogation at the
law reformer.

The processual law so dominates
in certain systems as to overpower
substantive rights and substantial justice.
The humanist rule that procedure should
be the handmaid, not the mistress, of
legal justice compels consideration of
vesting a residuary power in judges to act
ex debito justiciae where the tragic
sequel
otherwise
would
be
wholly
inequitable. Justice is the goal of
jurisprudence - processual, as much as
substantive."

12. Upon applicability of aforesaid
judgments in the present facts and
circumstances, it is evident that the
language of Rules 11 and Rule 16 of the
Rules of 2011 are not couched in
negative terms imposing any penal
liability for non adherence to the same. In
such circumstances, it is held that the
time period indicated in Rule 11 and Rule
16 of the Rules of 2011 are mainly
directory and not mandatory in nature.

13. The aforesaid aspect has also
been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Mahesh
Chand Jarari vs. State of U.P. and Others,
Writ-A No.10453 of 2019 and in the case
of Devendra Dev Pandey vs. State of U.P.
and Others, Writ-A No.1419 of 2013
wherein also the aforesaid time period has
not been held to be mandatory in nature.

14. The aforesaid aspect would also
be required to be seen in terms of the fact
that the Rules of 2011 are beneficial in
nature in consonance with the concept of a
Welfare State and therefore are a means of
reimbursing a government employee for
expenses incurred during treatment of self
or dependents. In the considered opinion of
this Court, such a factor would also be
directly relatable to Article 21 of the
Constitution of India whereby right of
dignity has been held to be a fundamental
right.

15. In the case of Consumer
Education and Research Centre vs.
Union of India and Others (1995) 3 SCC
42, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
right to health, medical aid to protect the
health and vigour of a worker while in
service or post retirement is a fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India in order to make life of the employee
meaningful and purposeful with dignity of
a person. Relevant portion of the judgment
is as follows:

"24...Therefore, it must be held
that the right to health and medical care is
a fundamental right under Article 21 read
with Articles 39(e), 41 and 43 of the
Constitution and make the life of the
workman meaningful and purposeful with
dignity of person. Right to life includes
protection of the c health and strength of
the worker and is a minimum requirement
to enable a person to live with human
dignity. The State, be it Union or State
Government or an industry, public or
private, is enjoined to take all such actions
which will promote health, strength and
vigour of the workman during the period of
employment and leisure and health even
after retirement as basic essentials to live
the life with health and happiness. The
health and d strength of the worker is an
integral facet of right to life...."
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"25. Therefore, we hold that right
to health, medical aid to protect the health
and vigour to a worker while in service or
post-retirement is a fundamental right
under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e),
41, 43, 48-A and all related articles and
fundamental human rights to make the life
of the workman meaningful and purposeful
with dignity of person."

16. In the case of Kirloskar
Brothers Ltd. vs ESI Corporation
(1996) 2SCC 682, again the medical
facilities of a workman or employee has
been held to be fundamental human right
in order to enable him to enjoy the fruits
of his labour. The relevant paragraph is
as follows:

"9. The expression 'life' assured
in Article 21 does not connote mere animal
existence or continued drudgery through
life. It has a much wider meaning which
includes right to livelihood, better standard
of living, hygienic conditions in the
workplace
and
leisure
facilities
and
opportunities to eliminate sickness and
physical disability of the workmen. Health
of the workman enables him to enjoy the
fruits of his labour, to keep him physically
fit and mentally alert. Medical facilities,
therefore, is a fundamental and human
right to protect his health. In that case
health insurance, while in service or after
retirement was held to be a fundamental
right and even private industries are
enjoined to provide health insurance to the
workmen."

17. Similarly, in the case of State of
Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1994)
4SCC 117, it has been held as follows:

"...it is for the State to secure
health to its citizen as its primary duty."
18. In the case of Chairman Railway
Board vs. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC
465, the definition of the word 'life' as
defined in the universal declaration of
human rights, 1948 has been explained visa-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India
in the following manner:

"32. The word "LIFE" has also
been used prominently in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. (See
Article 3 quoted above.) The fundamental
rights under the Constitution are almost in
consonance with the rights contained in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as
also the Declaration and the Covenants of
Civil
and
Political
Rights
and
the
Covenants
of
Economic,
Social
and
Cultural Rights, to which India is a party
having ratified them, as set out by this
Court in Kubic Darusz v. Union of India
36. That being so, since "LIFE" is also
recognised as a basic human right in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948, it has to have the same meaning and
interpretation as has been placed on that
word by this Court in its various decisions
relating to Article 21 of the Constitution.
The meaning of the word "life" cannot be
narrowed down. According to the tenor of
the language used in Article 21, it will be
available not only to every citizen of this
country, but also to a "person" who may
not be a citizen of the country."

19. A perusal of the aforesaid
judgments is, therefore, clearly indicative
of the fact that right to medical facilities in
case of an employee of the State or an
instrumentality thereof or other authorities
which come within Article 12 of the
Constitution of India is a right which is
inherently
fundamental
and
therefore
comes within definition of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
1 All. Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. General Manager, S.B.I., Lko & Ors.
1203

20. In the present facts and
circumstances, it is, therefore, quite evident
that rejection of petitioner's claim for
reimbursement on the ground that it was
not within a time frame indicated in the
Rules of 2011 is not in consonance with the
judgments
rendered.
Therefore,
such
contentions by the opposite parties are
rejected.

21. So far as the second ground for
rejection is concerned, it is also evident
from the letter dated 07.04.2022 issued
by the Chief Medical Officer, Pratapgarh
that claims of petitioner for medical
reimbursement were verified and found
established and corroborated whereafter
recommendation
was
made
by
the
concerned authority in accordance with
rules. The letter dated 07.04.2022 issued
by the Chief Medical Officer does not
indicate
that
petitioner's
claim
for
reimbursement was not in the proper
format. Therefore, it does not stand a
reason that such a ground is being taken
for the first time by the opposite parties
in counter affidavit which has been filed.

22. Once petitioner has submitted
original receipts and bills regarding
reimbursement of claims pertaining to
expenses incurred on treatment of his
deceased wife and the same have been
verified by the competent authority, such
claim cannot be permitted to be denied
mainly on the technical ground that it is
not in the prescribed format.

23. Considering the aforesaid
discussions, it is evident that the twin
grounds taken by the opposite parties to
deny
petitioner's
claim
for
reimbursement were not in accordance
with either rules or the judgments
indicated here-in-above.

24. In consideration thereof, a writ in
the
nature
of
mandamus
is
issued
commanding the opposite party no.2, i.e
The Director, Technical Education, Uttar
Pradesh, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur and other
competent authorities to ensure payment of
reimbursement of amount of Rs.3,04,935/-
to petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date of certified copy of this order
is produced before the said authority. In
view of the fact that petitioner's claims are
lying unattended since 07.04.2022 (the date
when they were verified by the Chief
Medical Officer, Pratapgarh), it is directed
that interest at the rate of 8% per annum on
the outstanding amount shall also be
payable to petitioner with effect from
07.04.2022 till the date of actual payment.

25.

Resultantly,
the
petition
succeeded and is allowed.

26. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1203
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 7332 of 2023

Smt. Sharda Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, S.B.I., Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi

A. Service Law - Ex gratia - Nature - As a
matter of right or as a grace of Bank -