[2026:RJ-JP:28962] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15933/2012 CNR: RJHC020823182012 | URN: CW / 26658U / 2012 Nanag Ram Mali S/o Shri Kaluram, Ward No. 29, Near Ganesh Garden, Samod Road, Chomu, District Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Director, State Insurance & Provident Fund Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 3. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC with Mr. Shubham Gupta HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 27/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for reimbursement of the medical claim qua the treatment of the petitioner after having suffered cardiac arrest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Supervisor with the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department. On 17.01.2011, in an emergent condition, the petitioner was treated at Jaipur Heart Institute and underwent surgery for cardiac arrest and was subsequently discharged on 21.01.2011. The petitioner submitted application on 27.09.2011 for reimbursement of the medical bills amounting to Rs. [2026:RJ-JP:28962] (2 of 4) [CW-15933/2012] 1,77,630/-. The respondent-Department however, till date has not furnished any plausible explanation, nor has any valid reason been assigned for withholding the reimbursement of the said amount. 3. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been averred that the medical diary of the petitioner was prepared on 29.04.2011, whereas the treatment was availed prior to the date of renewal, i.e., on 17.01.2011 and therefore, reimbursement is not admissible under the Scheme. 4. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record. 5. Exception to Clause 6 (1)(b) of the Rajasthan State Pensioners' Medical Concession Scheme, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “Scheme of 2009”) which existed in the statute book at that point of time, provided as under: “Exception: In cases where indoor/specialized treatment is taken prior to the date of issue/renewal of Medical Diary during that particular year, the cost of Medical Claim for such treatment shall be reimbursed as per the scheme” 6. A bare perusal of the above exception makes it clear that if any treatment is taken prior to the date of issuance/renewal of the medical diary, the cost of medical claim shall be reimbursed as per the scheme. Therefore, there was no impediment with the respondent-Department to allow the reimbursement of the medical claim of the petitioner because of the said clause or because of the non-renewal of the medical diary of the petitioner. As held in Ram Kishore Bindal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9485/2014 (decided on 04.05.2016), the denial of the [2026:RJ-JP:28962] (3 of 4) [CW-15933/2012] payment of medical bills is not justified even if the renewal of the medical diary was made at a subsequent date. 7. It is the settled position of law that even if some medical treatment is undertaken in a private or unrecognized hospital, the department is under an obligation to reimburse the amount to the extent permissible under the Rules governing the same. In Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; AIR 1996 SC 1388, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “10. ……….. ………… In such an urgency one cannot sit at home and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for getting medical treatment at a particular hospital or wait for admission in some Government medical institute. In such a situation, decision has to be taken forthwith by the person or his attendants if precious life has to be saved. We share the views afore-expressed” In Rama Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. C.W.P. No.7469/2016 (decided on 21.01.2022) passed by this Court, it was held as under:- “.……….. It is now a settled position of law that even in cases where the treatment of an employee has been taken in non-recognized hospital the medical reimbursement has to be made at the rate that may be applicable for similar treatment in the recognized government hospitals.” 8. Further, this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8796/2015; Smt. Tulsi Devi Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (decided on 06.09.2022), while dealing with similar facts has already taken a view that medical reimbursement cannot be denied on the ground that the medical diary was not renewed on the date of the treatment. [2026:RJ-JP:28962] (4 of 4) [CW-15933/2012] 9. The prolonged inaction on part of the respondents in processing the petitioner's claim, despite its submission in the year 2011, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as it results in unjust deprivation of the petitioner's legitimate entitlement. Once the petitioner had submitted a claim under the governing Scheme, the respondents were duty- bound to consider and decide the same expeditiously and in accordance with law. 10. In view of the ratio as laid down in the above-mentioned judgments and in view of the above observations, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent-Authorities are directed to reimburse the medical claim of the petitioner to the extent the same is permissible in terms of the Scheme of 2009. The appropriate orders be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. It is made clear that the reimbursable amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 115 - RAVI KHANDELWAL