Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

H.S. Bedi, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '626833',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '626833',
		(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Renu Saigal Vs the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary Department of Architecture and ors - Citation 626833 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '626833',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 21',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Renu Saigal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. ' 6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Anil Khetarpal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Ajay Jain, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-07-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' H.S. Bedi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.</p><p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.</p><p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.</p><p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.</p><p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-</p><p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-</p><p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;</p><p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;</p><p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;</p><p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;</p><p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.</p><p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.</p><p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.</p><p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.</p><p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx</p><p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9</p><p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'</p><p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.</p><p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)120PLR666',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '626833',
	(int) 1 => 'renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/626833/renu-saigal-vs-commissioner-architecture'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>H.S. Bedi, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Architect in the Department of Architecture of the Haryana Government. She fell ill in June 1996. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the PGI) diagnosed her illness as Hairy Cell Leukemia. She remained admitted in the P.G.I, for some time in July and August, 1996. The doctors in the P.G.I, prescribed a course of medicines for the petitioner and accordingly issued an Essentially Certificate (Annexure P-2) certifying that Interfron-A, a very expensive medicine, which had to be administered to her periodically was not available in the stock of the P.G.I, and had to be purchased from outside. The P.G.I, also issued a certificate (Annexure P-3) that as the petitioner's treatment was going to be a prolonged one, the dose of medication was likely to be in the range of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner accordingly put in an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses during the period she remained admitted in the P.G.I. and also applied for some advance so that she could use the same on purchasing medicines. The said application was forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4), who sanctioned an advance of Rs. 20,000/- vide annexure P-5 and at the same time recommended that as there were other patients undergoing similar treatment, the Government policy with regard to reimbursement Annexure P-9, dated 11.8.1992 to the petition needed to be revised. The petitioner thereafter represented once again requesting that another sum of Rs. 20,000/- be advanced to her but no further action was taken thereon presumably on the ground that the government itself was contemplating a change in the policy Annexure P-9 with respect to outdoor patients who were suffering from chronic diseases as this policy which provided that no employee would be entitled to reimbursement of more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum was unrealistic. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed impugning the said clause in the policy, Annexure P-9 and seeking a further direction that all the bills submitted by the petitioner be reimbursed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been awarded full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her for the period that she remained admitted in the P.G.I, as per the provisions of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (hereinafter called the Rules). It has however been pleaded that as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease she was entitled to not more than Rs. 6,000/- per annum for her treatment as an outdoor patient as per Annexure P-9, although some substantial advances has nevertheless been given to her as a special case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. Anil Kheterpal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner's case was admittedly covered under the Rules and as she had been treated in the P.G.I, which was admittedly a government hospital, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement for her medical expenses. In this connection, he has referred, in particular to sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 and Rules 3 and 4 to contend that almost all the expenses incurred in a government hospital either as an indoor or as an outdoor patient were reimbursable and, as such, the respondents were not justified in refusing to make the reimbursement for the petitioner's treatment as an outdoor patient.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. As against this, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has argued that the government instructions, Annexure P-9 specifically limited the reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to outdoor patients to Rs. 6,000/- per annum as the petitioner was suffering from a chronic disease and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., J.T. 1998(2) S.C. 136, it lay within the exclusive province of the government to frame a policy with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenses keeping in view the resources at its command. He has further urged that in view of the provisions of the Rules alluded to above, it would be apparent that the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement only if she had been admitted as an indoor patient in a governmental hospital.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It will be seen that the Rules were promulgated by the Government of Punjab in view of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which authorised the Governor of the Province to make rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a Province. Admittedly, the rules therefore, have statutory force. The relevant Rules as also paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9, are reproduced below :-',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. In these rules, unless, there is anything repugnant to the subject or context.-',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. 'treatment' means the sum of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which a government servant is treated, and includes;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(i) the supply of all such medicines and vaccines as are in the price lists of the Medical Stores Depot and such medical comforts as are certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary, but no alcoholic stimulants;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(ii) such special treatment including electrical treatment and X-ray examination as is certified by the Civil Surgeon to be necessary and which may be provided by the staff of the hospital;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iii) such accommodation as is ordinarily provided in the hospital and is suited to the status of the Government servants;',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(iv) the services of such nurses as are ordinarily employed by the hospital; but does not include diet, or treatment by specialists who are not on the staff of the hospital.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>3. A government servant shall be entitled free of charge to treatment in a hospital in the place where he falls ill and in the absence of a hospital there, in the nearest hospital.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>4(i) Where according to the rules of the hospital in which a government servant receives treatment separate charges are made for medical, surgical and nursing treatment and for board, the charges for the former shall be defrayed by Government and the charges for board will be met by the Officer himself.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(ii) Where the Hospital charge is an inclusive charge, the charge for Board shall be levied from the Government servant under treatment at the rates noted below and the remaining hospital charges shall be regarded as the charges for medical surgical and nursing treatment.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>xx...................xx.......................xxxx........................xxxx...............xxx',
	(int) 16 => '<p>Paragraph 3 of Annexure P-9',
	(int) 17 => '<p>3. Persons claiming reimbursement on chronic diseases will not be entitled to any other medical allowances either at fixed rate or at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. as outdoor patient. No employee claiming reimbursement on account of outdoor treatment on chronic disease will be entitled reimbursement of more than Rs. 500/- per month. The instructions issued vide Govt. letter No. 2/59/88-1HB-III dated 17.7.1992 for reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of ten chronic diseases as outdoor patient may be treatment amended to this extent.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. A cumulative reading of the word 'treatment' alongwith the other observations mentioned above, clearly makes out that a government servant shall be entitled to. free of charge treatment in a hospital and the exceptions, if any, with regard to Board etc. have been specifically carved out in the rules themselves. It will also be seen that no distinction whatsoever has been made in the Rules with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses between indoor and outdoor patients and this has been drawn under paragraph 3 ibid. It is, therefore, apparent that the said instructions insofar as they deny full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on chronic disease to an outdoor patient cannot be justified as they are contrary to the Rules. The word 'chronic' has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary (Second Edition) as a disease long continued. It is common knowledge that a chronic disease and more particularly a malignant one destroys not only the financial but even the emotional health of the family and takes a very heavy toll on all who come into contact with the patient. To my mind, therefore, paragraph 3 of the Government Instructions Annexure P-9, insofar as they deny the benefit of full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of treatment as an outdoor patient cannot be justified on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Ram Lubhaya Bagga's case (supra) therefore, cannot come to the aid of the respondents.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Paragraph 3 of the Government instructions Annexure P-9 dated 11.8.1992 insofar as they deny the benefit of full medical reimbursement to an outdoor patient is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner both as an indoor and an outdoor patient within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also have her costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000/-. Dasti order.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Service
Court	Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On	Jul-07-1998
Case Number	Civil Writ Petition No. 12955 of 1997
Judge	H.S. Bedi, J.
Reported in	(1998)120PLR666
Acts	Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21
Appellant	Renu Saigal
Respondent	The State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Anil Khetarpal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	Ajay Jain, Adv.
Disposition	Petition allowed
Cases Referred	State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga

Renu Saigal Vs. the State of Haryana Through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Architecture and ors. - Court Judgment