1988 PLP 681 (SCMR)

S.A.NUSRAT, J.‑‑This appeal, by leave of this Court, is from the judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal, dated 9‑12‑1980, whereby respondent's appeal arising in the background of the following facts, was allowed:‑ (1) The respondent, who was serving as Chief Design Officer in the Irrigation and Power Department of the appellant at Hyderabad, had fallen ill in August 1978. He was examined by a medical board constituted by the Secretary to Government of Sind, Health Department, Karachi, and was advised to proceed abroad for investigation and treatment. In pursuance to the report of the medical board, the respondent applied for one month's ex‑Pakistan leave on medical ground, which was duly granted on 4‑9‑1978. In the said application dated 16‑8‑1978 it was nowhere mentioned that the respondent had applied for reimbursement of any amount for his treatment prior to proceeding abroad nor was he extended any assurance in the letter granting him leave. (2)The respondent, after his return from abroad on 18‑11‑1978, submitted as claim for reimbursement of Rs.20,961.37, which was rejected by the Finance Department on 11‑11‑1979 on the ground that the medical treatment abroad was not permissible under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959. (3) The respondent, after having failed in his departmental representation, filed an appeal before the Sind Service Tribunal, which was allowed as per impugned judgment and the respondent was held entitled to a claim of Rs.20,961.37 on account of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him on medical treatment abroad. It was contended on behalf of the appellant, as was also noticed in the leave granting order, that there was no provision under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), for the medical treatment of Government Servants abroad. The Tribunal too was conscious of this fact, but had placed reliance on rule 14 of the Rules, which reads as under:‑ Government may relax provisions of these rules in cases of special hardships. Relying upon the above rule, it was held by the learned Tribunal that in terms of Circular No.FD(SR‑II) 11‑9‑1977, dated 4‑12‑1977, issued by the Government of Sind in the Finance Department, on the subject of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on civil servants' medical treatment abroad, two conditions laid down for relaxation, viz; (a) where question of life is involved and treatment is not available in Pakistan and (b) where the disease may permanently disable the Government servant. The medical board of the Provincial Government had to certify that the treatment for the illness was not available in Pakistan. were satisfied in the case of the respondent. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that reimbursement of expenses on the medical treatment abroad in terms of rule 14 of the Rules, reproduced hereinabove, was a concession and the same could not be claimed as of right by a Government Servant. It was also contended that the respondent should have, in any case, applied for necessary sanction in relaxation of the Rules, in terms of rule 14 before proceeding abroad for treatment, which was admittedly not done. Agha Imdad Ali, learned counsel for the respondent, when confronted with the above position, was unable to challenge the legal stand taken on behalf of the department, but it was submitted by him that looking to the serious nature of the disease suffered by the respondent, the learned Tribunal had rightly directed that requisite medical expenses were admissible in the case. Sympathy apart, the legal position, as per rules, is quite clear. The grant or refusal of medical expenses for treatment abroad, in terms of rule 14 of the Rules, by `say of relaxation of the provisions of the Rules, is discretionary with the Government and such expenses cannot be claimed as of right by a Government servant. For reasons mentioned above. we would allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Service Tribunal, However, there will be no order as to costs. M.I. /G‑65/S Appeal allowed.