' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant constitutional petition under Article-199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has made the following prayer:--- "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that, writ petition may kindly be accepted and the respondents be directed to reimburse the cost of medicines to the petitioner."
2. Precisely, the facts necessary for the adjudication of the lies in hand are that the petitioner retired from Pakistan Railways as skilled wireman on 14-02-2004. The petitioner, suffered from .Hepatitis-C, whereupon, he approached Railway Hospital, Rawalpindi for his medical treatment, however, he was advised injections "Pegasus and capsules Ribazole-500 mg" by the doctor of Railway Hospital, Rawalpindi. The doctor of Railway Hospital did not admit the petitioner in the hospital and also informed the petitioner that the medicines advised to him are not available in the hospital, so the petitioner purchased the same from the local market. Petitioner initially spent an amount of Rs,54, 850 for purchase of medicines advised by the doctor of Railway Hospital and submitted a bill for re-imbursement of the said amount to the respondents. The respondents after adopting due procedure paid the said amount to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner furnished five other bills of equal amount for the months of June, July, August, September and October, 2009, however, the respondents refused to reimburse the amount claimed by the petitioner, hence, the instant petition.
3. In pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, report and paradise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents in the past had reimbursed the cost of medicines to one Abdul Razzaq, an employee of Pakistan Railways, as such, the petitioner has been subjected to a discriminatory treatment; that the learned Federal Ombudsman has recommended the case of the petitioner for reimbursement of the cost of medicines purchased by him, as advised by the doctor of Railways Hospital, Rawalpindi, despite that the respondents are not implementing the recommendations of the Federal Ombudsman; that the impugned action of the respondents is based on mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the instant writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has the alternate remedy under the Payment of Wages Act; that as per Finance Division's letter dated 22-12-1988 as well as in accordance with Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO), Pakistan Railways letter dated 18-8-1997, the employees working in BPS-1 to 15 are not entitled for out door local purchased medicines, as they receive medical allowance. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that Pakistan Railways had reimbursed the amount of outdoor local purchased medicines to one of its employees, namely Abdul Razzaq, however, he has taken the stance that the said reimbursement was inadvertently made by the department to the said employee of Pakistan Railways and the petitioner cannot ask for a relief on the basis of a wrong precedent.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.
7. It is evident from the documents made available on the file that the petitioner had approached Railway Hospital, Rawalpindi for treatment of Hepatitis-C, however, the doctor of Railway Hospital, Rawalpindi did not admit him in the hospital and advised him injections and capsules. The injections and capsules advised by the doctor, were not available in the Railways hospital, hence, the petitioner purchased the same from the open market. It is also evident from the record that the respondents, initially reimbursed an amount of Rs,54,850 to the petitioner but later on, they refused to reimburse the bills submitted by the petitioner in the months of June, July, August, September and October, 2009. The respondents in their para- wise comments have admitted the reimbursement of medical bills to an employee of Pakistan Railways namely Abdul Razzaq, for outdoor purchased medicines. Furthermore, it is also evident from the documents appended with the instant writ petition that G.M. (Dev.) of Pakistan Railways has observed that the case of the petitioner be considered on humanitarian ground, as the mistake was on the part of doctor of Railway hospital. It was the doctor of Railway Hospital, Rawalpindi, who did not admit the petitioner in the hospital and compelled him to purchase the prescriptive/diagnosed injections/medicines from the open market and the petitioner who was suffering from chronic disease, having no other option resorted to purchase the advised medicines from the open market, as such, the petitioner could not be penalized for no fault on his part. It is pertinent to mention here, that in civilized societies, provision of health and education facilities are deemed to be the primary responsibility of the State but in the instant case, unfortunately, the petitioner who is a retired employee of Pakistan Railways, is running behind the said State functionary for re-imbursement of an amount which he had spent for purchase of medicines advised by the Railway hospital doctor because these injections/medicines were not available in the said hospital, which otherwise were required to be provided by the hospital authorities.
8. In the above perspective, inference can safely be drawn that the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the bills for local purchased medicines/injections, as advised by the doctor of Railway Hospital, Rawalpindi. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed reimburse the amount spent by the petitioner in respect of the prescriptive injections/medicines of doctor of Railway Hospital Rawalpindi.