Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KALI RAM TYAGI versus CHIEF M.D., U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kali Ram Tyagi v. Chief M.D., U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And Others - WRIT - A No. 24341 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9314 (10 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                Court No. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24341 of 2006

Kali Ram Tyagi

Versus

Chief Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

Shakti Bhavan, Lucknow  and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Present writ petition has been filed for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay balance amount of medical expenses of the petitioner forthwith.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner had been performing and discharging duties  as Assistant Store Keeper with U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and presently is posted at Electricity  Store Sub Division, Hapur, District Ghaziabad. Petitioner had been suffering from diabetes, Hypertension Earthyraid since 1982, and the net consequence of the same was that both the kidneys of petitioner were  affected  and transplantation was recommended. Transplantation took place  on 28.08.2002 and since then petitioner's regular treatment is going on. The U.P. State Power Corporation Ltd. has issued circular to the effect that if any employee of the Corporation is required transplantation of kidney, the expenses up to the extent of 75% incurred in transplantation shall be borne by the Corporation. Petitioner submitted details of expenses which had been incurred in transplantation of kidney and treatment. The same was examined by the Executive Engineer, and thereafter, the Executive Engineer wrote letter to the Deputy General Manager for sanctioning  medical expenses of Rs.2,24,229/-, which is 75% of Rs.2,98,972/-. The Deputy General Manager also recommended the matter to the Director (Karmik Prabandhan) for sanction of medical expenses to the petitioner. The matter was kept pending and was not being finalized, as such petitioner was compelled to file writ petition No.856 of 2006, whereupon this Court asked the respondents to decide the claim of petitioner and to release the amount. Pursuant to directive issued by this Court, Director (Karmik Prabandhan) sanctioned the amount incurred on the medical expenses of the petitioner, however, the medical expenses incurred on Smt. Shalini Tyagi, who is the daughter of the petitioner and donor of the kidney, was refused, as such petitioner represented the matter on 13.02.2006 for sanction of the aforesaid amount also. The said claim has been rejected on the ground that kidney donor is not dependent on the petitioner. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

On the matter being presented, learned counsel  for respondents was asked to seek necessary instructions in the matter, and ultimately time was allowed for filing counter affidavit. On 10.05.2006 a short counter affidavit has been filed and for refusing medical bill of daughter it has been contended that she is married daughter and is above the age of 25 years, and as per circular  dated 27.04.1994 she being married daughter is not entitled to medical reimbursement, as such claim of petitioner is uncalled for.

After the pleadings aforementioned have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for hearing and final disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in terms of Circular dated 20.04.2001, 75% of the total expenses incurred in undertaking medical treatment is liable to be reimbursed and in the matter of transplantation of kidney claim of donor has to be necessarily included in the expenses of the incumbent, who has undergone transplantation of kidney and as such bill of donor is also liable to be reimbursed .

Sri R.D. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, countered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that here daughter is donor and she is married and above 25 years of age, and in terms of Circular dated 27.04.1994 her medical bill cannot be reimbursed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the undisputed position is that in terms of circular dated 20.04.2001 if any employee who gets bypass surgery, kidney transplantation or any other major surgery is entitled to reimbursement  of  75%  of the total expenses. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that the said amount will be reimbursable  qua the hospitals which are situated even out of State of U.P. Thus, this very circular is clear and categorical that 75% of the expenses incurred is liable to be reimbursed. In the matter of kidney transplantation there has to be a donor and a donee. Here donor is daughter of the petitioner  and the donee is petitioner himself. Needless to say that to offer one's own kidney for being transplanted in other's body in itself is a big act of sacrifice and it is beyond comprehension and imagination that donor who is  sacrificing his/her kidney  be also saddled with the responsibility  of undertaking and bearing his/her expenses. In the matter of transplantation of kidney entire amount which is incurred on the treatment of donor  in all eventuality is liable to be clubbed towards expenses for treatment of donee and both cannot be segregated. In case segregation is done, it will amount to closing eyes to the reality, as in the absences of donor, transplantation would be dream. Consequently, in the matter of kidney transplantation while computing the expenses incurred on donee the expenses incurred on donor has also to be clubbed and thereafter authorities concerned are duty bound to reimburse 75% of the expenses incurred in the treatment of donor and donee both.

Here, in the present case, it is a matter of chance that donor is daughter. It is true that in  terms of circular dated 27.04.1994 married daughter over 25 years of age is not entitled to any medical reimbursement, but here daughter is not getting any treatment; daughter was hale and hearty and in order to help an employee of the Corporation, who happened to be her father, she has come forward to offer her kidney, so that her father may sustain. Consequently, in the present case,  the view which has been taken is totally unsustainable view and the order dated 07.03.2006 is also equally unsustainable.

In view of what has been stated above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 07.03.2006 is quashed and set aside. The Director (Karmik Prabandhan)  is  directed to reimburse 75% of the total bill submitted by the petitioner towards expenses incurred in transplantation of kidney and treatment of donor and donee.

No order as to costs.

10.05.2006

SRY.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.