Om Prakash Gargi vs State Of Punjab & Ors
- SCC(1996) 11 SCC 399
- Neutral1996 INSC 1155
- SCR[1996] Supp (7) SCR 229
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a government servant claims reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a private hospital, the right to reimbursement does not extend to a claim for interest on delayed payment of such reimbursement, as interest cannot be imposed on discretionary benefits granted by the Government merely because of delay in their disbursement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made on 29.5.1996 in C.M.No.933/96 in LPA No.60/96.
Admittedly, the petitioner had claimed reimbursement of medical expenses spent in private hospital for heart disease. Ultimately, the amount came to be disbursed on August 28, 1991 but there was delay in Payment thereof. The petitioner filed the writ petition. The High Court in LPA directed payment of the amount but disallowed interest at 12% as claimed by the petitioner. He filed a review petition and the same came to be dismissed. Thus this special leave petition.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in several cases, the Division Bench had directed payment of interest, but in this case, they have departed from the above principle. When a special leave petition was filed by the State, this Court had dismissed the same in limine. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of interest.
We do not find any force in the contention. lt is true that but for the benefit of reimbursement of the amount granted by the Government, the petitioner has no right to claim reimbursement. The question is: Whether on account of delay in reimbursing the amount incurred towards medical expenses, the State should be liable to pay also interest on the delayed payment? We are of the view that it is inexpedient and not proper to direct the State to pay interest for delay in payment of the reimbursement amount. lt requires verification of the amounts spent by the petitioner and similar person. His right only is to get reimbursement and it does not follow that for the delay in the payment of medical reimbursement, he should also be entitled to interest thereon. The order passed by this Court on an earlier occasion was to the effect of dismissing the special leave petition In limine. Therefore it does not furnish any for following the same. Under these circumstances, we do not think that it would be proper to direct payment of interest on the delayed reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by a Government servant.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free