[2025:RJ-JP:31520] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9020/2011 Asgar Ali Gaur @ Asgar Ali S/o Shri Wasir Ali, aged about 61 years R/o Panchayat Samiti Road, Dataramgarh, Distt. Sikar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Behind Secretariat, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 2. The Director, Pension & Pension Welfare Department, Jaipur Raj. 3. The Treasurer, Treasury Office, Sikar Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Rastogi for Mr. Ankur Rastogi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Prakhar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with following prayer: "1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to reimburse the amount in question i.e. an amount Rs.223900/- and about 20000/- ambulance charges, total amount Rs.243900/-, as the petitioner has served for the respondent department for a longer time as a regular employee. 2. Any other appropriate order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be given in favour of the petitioner. 3. Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded in favor of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of disputes involved in the instant writ petition, are [2025:RJ-JP:31520] (2 of 5) [CW-9020/2011] that the petitioner was a government servant and an attaining age of superannuation, he retired w.e.f. 31.03.2010. As per petitioner, he is covered by Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 2009. 3. After his superannuation, all of a sudden, he suffered cardiac attack and consulted in Medanta Hospital at Gurgaon, where he was admitted on 11.08.2010 and was discharged after treatment on 19.08.2010. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he underwent CABG on 14.08.2010 and during surgery steel wires have been put to unite the sternum of the petitioner. 4. After getting discharged from the hospital, the petitioner submitted medical bills for reimbursement. Thereafter, the petitioner received one letter dated 04.11.2010 seeking some more documents for the purpose of processing the bills. As per petitioner, all the documents were submitted however, vide letter dated 01.02.2011 (Annex-8), the respondent-Department has refused to continue the reimbursement process of the medical bill only on account of fact that at the relevant time, the petitioner has failed to get renewal of his medical diary and such renewal was done later on. It has been mentioned in the impugned letter dated 01.02.2011 that as per Order No.F.1 (14) FD/Rules/2008/Jaipur dated 19.06.2009 issued by the Finance Department, reimbursement of medical bills can be done only after renewal of medical diary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason given for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is totally arbitrary and harsh. Merely, on account of procedural faults, the [2025:RJ-JP:31520] (3 of 5) [CW-9020/2011] substantive right of the petitioner to get reimbursement cannot be prejudiced. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the impugned letter dated 01.02.2011, and submitted that the reimbursement of medical bills can be done under the provisions of Rules and as per the prevailing rules reimbursement of the medical bill was possible only in the circumstances where the medical diary of the concerned retired government servant was updated. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner could not get renewal of the medical diary at the relevant time and it was done later on, hence the respondent-Department has rightly refused to process the medical bills of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 8. The respondents have nowhere objected to the entitlement of the petitioner to get benefits under the Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 2009, however, the only objection raised is that the medical diary issued to retired government servant was not updated and renewed on time. 9. Such an objection is mainly hyper-technical objection and is objected to harass and victimize the retired government servant. Merely, slackness or unability to get the medical diary renewed on time cannot deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right under the scheme of 2009. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court an order dated 20.01.2012, whereby amendment has been made in Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:31520] (4 of 5) [CW-9020/2011] State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 2009, resultantly an exception has been carved out that in cases where indoor or the specialized treatment is taken prior to the date of renewal issue of medical diary during that particular year, the cost of medical claim for such treatment shall be reimbursed as per the scheme. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that such order is prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively. 12. Needless to mention here that Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 2009 is a welfare scheme of the State Government and is objected to provide effective and free treatment to the pensioners, who earlier invested their entire life in serving the State Government. Raising hyper-technical objections to curtail their legitimate rights otherwise admissible under the scheme is an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents and cannot be appreciated by this Court. 13. It appears that the Government itself has realized that the hyper-technicality with regard to renewal of medical diary must be causing hurdles in the way of getting medical reimbursement therefore, rightly the amendment has been incorporated in the scheme enabling the aspirants to get reimbursement of medical bills even in the cases where medical diary is not renewed. The Objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents that such amendment is prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively, is totally unjustified and unreasonable. Such clarificatory amendments made in beneficial and welfare schemes are to be applied retrospectively and the [2025:RJ-JP:31520] (5 of 5) [CW-9020/2011] pending cases cannot be ignored and relief cannot be denied by merely referring such amendment as prospective in nature. 14. In view of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. 15. The respondents are directed to process the medical bill submitted by the petitioner under the scheme of 2009, without insisting upon the objection with regard to renewal of medical diary and in case, the petitioner is otherwise found entitled, for reimbursement the payment thereof may be released within the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/63