New DelhiIt took 16 years, nine judges and 18 dates for the Delhi High Court to decide whether a subordinate judiciary employee was entitled to reimbursement of Rs 51,854 – the money he spent on his son’s brain tumor treatment.
For nearly two decades, the case went from judge to judge. Two years after his death in November 2020, the long legal battle in favor of the employee finally ended a fortnight ago.
Meanwhile, seven of the nine judges who heard the case but did not conclude it have either been promoted or retired. Two were elevated to become judges of the Supreme Court, two became chief justices of major high courts before retiring, and one got a post-retirement job. Two are still serving as judges of the Delhi High Court.
Only two of the nine judges held effective hearings (where both sides are heard by the court) which took place last year itself. Finally, one of them decided the matter within two dates of hearing the arguments of both the parties.
The case of Mahendra Kumar Verma, who worked as a reader in North Delhi’s Tis Hazari court, is a poignant tale of a litigant who did not live to see the day when he finally got justice.
read this also, ‘No Means No’ – Teach Kids To Respect Opposite Sex, Sexism Not ‘Cool’, Says Kerala HC
‘This Court expresses its deep disappointment’
In its 20-page order pronounced on January 9, a bench of Justice CD Singh expressed anguish over the delay in Verma’s case. “Before parting ways, this Court expresses its deep dismay as to how a petition seeking reimbursement of only Rs.51,824/- is pending for 16 years, and is being vehemently opposed by the GNCTD (Government of Delhi), It said.
Nevertheless, for Verma’s family, the court’s decision has come as a huge relief. His daughter Sulakshana told ThePrint that the family has been struggling to take care of her brother, for whose treatment Verma went through a long legal journey.
Her brother had suffered a stroke four years earlier and needed frequent hospital visits and medication. “So, right now it is necessary to take care of whatever money we get,” she said.
Sulakshana, the eldest of five siblings, used to keep an eye on this matter. After Verma passed away during the pandemic, she engaged the lawyer to see that the proceedings were concluded.
She was barely 27, and newly married, when her father approached the Delhi HC on the issue of medical reimbursement.
The irony of the case, says Sulakshana, is that Verma, being an employee of the institution, has become a victim of delay – a worrying curse of the justice delivery system.
trial
Verma first bore the medical expenses for emergency treatment given to her then 15-year-old son, who was diagnosed with medulloblastoma In Ganga Ram Hospital. He was operated twice in June 2003, for which a bill of Rs 1,03,122 was made. However, as per the court order, only Rs 89,226 was reimbursed to Verma.
Later, as part of follow-up treatment, Verma’s son was referred to the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, where he received radiation and chemotherapy. Verma told the court that even during this second round of treatment, he was not fully reimbursed. Instead, in August 2004, he was issued a letter to deposit Rs 51,854 by the officers of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, District and Sessions Judge.
When the matter was argued before a bench of Justice Singh of the Delhi High Court, Verma’s counsel Rajat Aneja disclosed that his client had made representations to the Disbursing Officer from April 4, 2004 to March 1, 2005 to know the reasons for the deposit demand. Sent. His representation was rejected first on 23 August 2005 and again on 17 January 2006 and the District and Sessions Judge also gave an opinion against him.
In the Delhi High Court, Aneja argued that the Directorate of Health Services had clearly given permission to Verma and granted him medical advance for his son’s treatment. Therefore, it was not even that Verma had taken his son to a non-scheduled hospital.
It was in the HC that the disbursement department explained the reasons for demanding deposits. Verma was accused of submitting manipulated documents to obtain refunds illegally. The department claimed that Verma was reimbursed as per his entitlement and demanded Rs 51,854 for the excess amount paid to him due to a calculation error.
Verma’s lawyer argued Being a Government servant, Verma was covered under the Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 and orders passed thereunder from time to time. But the disbursement department did not reimburse the total claim submitted by her towards the medical expenses of her son.
The legal question that arose in Verma’s case was whether the rules allowed her full reimbursement for the medical expenses incurred on her son’s illness. Verma attacked the “arbitrary demand” of the disbursement department for recovering Rs 51,854 from him, without assigning any reason. The High Court stayed the order of the Distribution Department in the first hearing.
Rejecting the contentions of the disbursement department, Justice Singh ruled that Verma was entitled to full reimbursement of the expenses. On reading the provisions, the judge concluded that the Medical Attendance Rules are a “beneficial piece of legislation to facilitate good and sound health to all Government servants and their families”.
Justice Singh, in his January 9 order, said, “There is no reason as to why reading any impediment into the rules has a tendency to defeat the cherished constitutional rights for which this Court has always been a guardian.” standing as.”
Parallel case of acquittal and clean chit in his name
While he was litigating his financial dues, Verma also fought parallel proceedings to clear himself of the charges of fraud leveled against him by the Disbursements Department.
Verma, who retired in February 2013, was under disciplinary probe for incurring disproportionate medical expenses for his son’s treatment, which, according to the department, amounted to over Rs 66,000.
As a result of these proceedings, he was not given his retirement dues such as gratuity and the amount due for earned leave on his retirement.
Verma filed a second petition in the HC to quash the charge sheet served on him in the disciplinary proceedings. Although HC did not interfere In May 2014, it ordered the release of Verma’s retired dues and disposed of his petition.
Finally, on August 6, 2014, the then District and Sessions Judge gave a clean chit to Verma. Verma was not given his dues despite the High Court order and acquittal. He was finally released in 2014 following directions from the HC bench, which was hearing his medical reimbursement case.
However, since Verma was still grappling with the reimbursement issue, the department sought to deduct Rs 66,000 from the retiree’s dues and placed it in a fixed deposit (FD) with the HC. The amount is to be handed over to Verma’s family, given that the court has now ruled in his favour.
insight into the reason for the delay
Verma’s case provides an insight into the causes of delayed judgments in civil matters. There were 31,140 civil writ petitions pending in the Delhi High Court as on December 31 last year. The figures show that there was a marginal increase of 114 cases in this category in December itself. A writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on the deprivation of fundamental rights.
A perusal of Verma’s case records shows that between March 2006 and August 2009, his case was listed seven times. Except once, every time the matter was adjourned as the respondent or the disbursement department had not filed its reply.
On 12 August 2009, the court issued a “rule” in the matter, meaning it directed the matter to be listed regularly. Aneja said that when a rule is issued in a case and it is accepted, it is heard in sequence. “Such cases are taken up year after year and it may take years before any particular Case Heard again for final decision,” he said.
Hence, Verma’s case came to light only in May 2014. At this juncture, Verma had already fought his other suit on superannuation dues. Since the disbursement department had not complied with the court’s order in that matter, Verma filed an application in the reimbursement case. This further prolonged the hearing of the main matter as three dates had lapsed to know whether the department had released the retired dues or not.
Finally, on 7 August 2014, the High Court issued the release order.
Between 2018 and 2019, Verma’s plea was listed twice but was adjourned as none of the parties were present in the court. The case got shelved due to Covid-induced restrictions on court hearings. Meanwhile, Verma passed away in November 2020.
In January 2022, Verma’s family filed an application to make his legal heirs a party in the case. The permission was granted and the formalities were completed in February. Arguments in the matter were finally heard on August 13 and November 3, following which the judgment was reserved.
As far as Sulakshana and her family are concerned, the ordeal doesn’t end with the verdict. His father’s death has opened another round of litigation for him. This time the matter pertains to Verma’s pension benefits.
(Edited by Geetalakshmi Ramanathan)
read this also, What is ‘living will’ and what is the Supreme Court hearing on passive euthanasia all about