[2025:RJ-JP:3853] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11498/2016 Kalu Ram Tak, S/o Late Sh. Gopiram Ji Tak, S-2-A, Dharti Mata, Barkat Nagar Market, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur Raj. 2. The Principal Secretary, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur Raj. 3. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Director Of Pension, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 4. Additional Director And Additional Secretary, R.P.M.F., Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj. 5. Treasury Officer, City Treasury, Collectorate Campus, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Rathore for Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to make the payment of the expenditure on medical bills incurred in the treatment of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:3853] (2 of 3) [CW-11498/2016] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suffering from cardiac disease and he has taken treatment at Heart & General Hospital, Jaipur, wherein he incurred total expenses of Rs.1,41,334/-. Counsel submits that after recovery, the petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement of the said amount, but the respondents have paid a petty sum of amount of Rs.23059/-. Counsel submits that as per the rules, the petitioner is entitled to get reimbursement of the whole amount i.e. Rs.1,41,334/-. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments and submits that the detail of the package of surgery received by the petitioner was not provided, hence, under these circumstances, the amount could not be disbursed. Counsel submits that in absence of the details of the package of surgery received by him, the petitioner is not entitled to get the amount claimed by him, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has undertaken treatment of his cardiac disease at Heart & General Hospital, Jaipur. 6. The only question remains for consideration of this Court is that whether the respondents can deny the payment of medical bills to the petitioner on a technical reason that the petitioner has failed to provide the details of the package of surgery received by him at hospital for taking his treatment. [2025:RJ-JP:3853] (3 of 3) [CW-11498/2016] If it is so, the respondent could have asked the petitioner to submit the details of the said package, but instead of doing so, they have made payment of Rs.23059/-. The aforesaid act of the respondents in denying the rightful claim of the petitioner, was not justified. 7. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit one more application in the office of the respondents with details of the said package of surgery availed by him for his treatment at Heart & General Hospital, Jaipur. 8. In case, the petitioner submits the said application with the aforesaid details in the office of the respondents, it is expected from the respondents to reimburse the medical claim of the petitioner immediately, not beyond the period of three months thereafter. 9. It is made clear that if the order passed by this Court is not complied by the respondents within the above stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of this order, till its actual payment. 10. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/105