[2025:RJ-JP:4613] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16139/2015 Shanti Sharan Mathur S/o Late Shri B.L. Mathur, 121/75 Vijay Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Registrar, Co-Operative Department, Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, 22 Godown, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Member Secretary And Director, Directorate Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Member Secretary And Treasurer, Board Of Trustees, Rajasthan State Pensioner Medical Concession, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manoj Sharma, AAG with Mr.Padam Singh Gurjar, AGC & Ms.Pooja Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 19.02.2015, by which the respondents have refused to reimburse the medical bills of the petitioner for the expenses incurred in his treatment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired pensioner and he suffered a heart attack on 08.02.2013 and under the emergent situation, he was admitted in Saket Hospital, however, due to his critical condition, he was [2025:RJ-JP:4613] (2 of 3) [CW-16139/2015] referred to Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital to save his life, where it was found that his arteries were blocked and accordingly, the stents were implanted. Counsel submits that in the aforesaid treatment, the petitioner has incurred medical amounting to Rs.1,27,584/-. Counsel submits that after recovery, an application was submitted by the petitioner for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount, but the respondents have refused to reimburse the same on a technical count that at the relevant time, medical diary of the petitioner was not ready. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a retired personnel and his medical diary was not be renewed by the respondents on account of non-receipt of the Last Payment Certificate (for short, "the LPC") of the petitioner. Counsel submits that several representations have been submitted by the petitioner for preparation of the medical diary and in case, the diary was not renewed, the petitioner would be blamed for that still the aforesaid delay was caused on the part of the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is a retired personnel and he was in possession of the medical diary, when he suffered a heart attack and underwent the treatment at the said hospital. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the [2025:RJ-JP:4613] (3 of 3) [CW-16139/2015] respondents on a hyper-technical objection that at the relevant time, when the treatment was taken, his diary was not ready. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that several representations have been submitted by the petitioner before the respondent- department, but his medical diary was not renewed for want of L.P.C. If the diary was not prepared by the respondents, the petitioner cannot suffer because of the same. 7. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to reimburse the amount of medical bills to the petitioner, as per the rates applicable in the approved hospitals, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. Needless to observe that the respondents are supposed to comply with the directions issued by this Court within the above stipulated time, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum, from the date of passing of this order till its actual payment. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /80