16 yrs of tareekh pe tareekh & a ‘victory’ after death — court staffer’s long fight for justice

 A reader in Tis Hazari court, Mahendra Verma was fighting for full reimbursement of expenses incurred in son's cancer treatment. His daughter took case forward after his death in 2020. 

BHADRA SINHA, The Print, 26 January, 2023, New Delhi: It took the Delhi High Court 16 years, nine judges and 18 dates to decide if a subordinate judiciary employee was entitled to reimbursement of Rs 51,854 — the money he spent on his son’s treatment for a brain tumour.

For nearly two decades, the case moved from judge to judge. The prolonged legal battle finally ended a fortnight ago in the employee’s favour, over two years after his death in November 2020.

In the meantime, seven out of nine judges, who heard the case, but did not conclude it, either got promoted or retired. Two got elevated to become Supreme Court judges, two became chief justices of prominent high courts before retiring, and one got a post-retirement job. Two are still serving as judges of the Delhi HC.

Only two out of the nine judges held effective hearings (where either or both parties are heard by court) that took place only last year. Finally, one of them adjudicated the matter within two dates of hearing arguments from both sides.

The case of Mahendra Kumar Verma, who worked as a reader with the Tis Hazari court in North Delhi, is a poignant story of a litigator who did not live to see the day he finally got justice.

‘This court expresses its deep dismay’

In its 20-page order, pronounced on 9 January, the bench of Justice C D Singh lamented the delay in Verma’s case. “Before parting, this court expresses its deep dismay that as to how a petition seeking reimbursement for only Rs 51,824/- has been pending for 16 years, and is being vehemently contested by the GNCTD (Delhi government),” it said.

Yet, for Verma’s family, the court’s decision has come as a big relief. His daughter, Sulakshana, told ThePrint that the family has been struggling to look after her brother, for whose medical treatment Verma undertook the prolonged legal journey.

Her brother suffered paralysis four years ago and is in need of constant hospital visits and medication. “So, whatever money we get right now is essential to look after him,” she said.

The eldest of five siblings, Sulakshana was the one who kept track of the case. After Verma passed away during the pandemic, she remained connected with the lawyer to see to it that the proceedings come to an end.

She was barely 27, and newly married, when her father approached the Delhi HC on the issue of medical reimbursement.

Sulakshana says the biggest irony of the case is that Verma, being an employee of the institution, became a victim of delay — the worrying bane of the justice delivery system.

The case

Verma first incurred medical expenses on account of emergency treatment given to his then 15-year-old son, diagnosed with Medulloblastoma at Ganga Ram Hospital. He was operated upon twice in June 2003, for which a bill of Rs 1,03,122 was raised. However, Verma was only reimbursed Rs 89,226, according to court order.

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 he was not fully reimbursed during this second round of treatment as well. Instead, in August 2004, he was issued a letter to deposit Rs 51,854 by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Officers of District and Sessions Judge.

When the matter was argued before Delhi HC judge Singh’s bench, Verma’s lawyer Rajat Aneja revealed that his client kept sending representations to the disbursing officer from 4 April 2004 to 1 March 2005, seeking to know the reasons for the deposit demand. His representation was earlier rejected on 23 August 2005 and then on 17 January 2006, and the district and sessions judge also opined against him.

In the Delhi HC, Aneja argued that the Directorate of Health Services had expressly permitted Verma and granted him a medical advance for his son’s treatment. It was, therefore, not even the case that Verma had taken his son to a non-empaneled hospital.

It was in the HC that the disbursal department spelled out the reasons for the deposit demand. Verma was accused of submitting manipulated documents to illegally obtain a refund. The department claimed that Verma was reimbursed as per his entitlement and that the demand of Rs 51,854 was raised for the amount that was overpaid to him due to a calculation error.

Verma’s lawyer argued that being a government employee, Verma was covered under the Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, and the orders passed there under from time to time. But the disbursal department never reimbursed the total claim submitted by him towards his son’s medical expenses.

The moot legal question that arose in Verma’s case was whether the rules allowed him full reimbursement against the medical expenditure on his son’s ailment. Verma assailed the disbursal department’s “arbitrary demand” to recover Rs 51,854 from him, without furnishing any reasons. The HC, on the first hearing, stayed the disbursal department’s order.

Rejecting the disbursal department’s contentions, Justice Singh ruled that Verma was eligible to get full reimbursement of the expenses. On reading of the provisions, the judge concluded that medical attendance rules are a “beneficiary piece of legislation to facilitate good and sound health for all the government employees and their families”.

“It does not stand to reason as to why any impediments are read in the rules which have the tendency to defeat the cherished Constitutional rights for which this court has always stood as a custodian,” Justice Singh observed in his 9 January order.

A parallel case to clear his name, and a clean chit

While he was litigating for his financial dues, Verma also contested parallel proceedings to get himself exonerated of the allegations of fraud levelled against him by the disbursal department.

Verma, who retired in February 2013, was subjected to disciplinary enquiry for overdrawing medical expenses for his son’s treatment, which, according to the department, amounted to more than Rs 66,000.  

As a result of these proceedings, he was not given his retiral dues such as gratuity and amount payable towards his earned leaves upon his superannuation.

Verma filed a second petition in the HC to quash the charge sheet served to him in the disciplinary proceedings. Though the HC did not intervene in the probe, in May 2014, it ordered release of Verma’s retiral dues and disposed of his petition.

Finally, on 6 August 2014, Verma was given a clean chit by the then district and sessions judge. Despite the HC order and exoneration, Verma was not given his dues. They were ultimately released later in 2014, following the directions of the HC bench that was hearing his medical reimbursement case.

However, since Verma was still battling the reimbursement issue, the department sought to deduct Rs 66,000 from the retiral dues and kept it in a fixed deposit (FD) with the HC. Given that the court has now ruled in his favour, this amount is to be handed over to Verma’s family.  

Insight into cause of delay

Verma’s case gives an insight into the causes for delayed decisions in civil cases. There were 31,140 civil writ petitions pending in the Delhi HC as of 31 December last year. Data shows there was a marginal increase of 114 cases in this category in December itself. Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is denial of fundamental rights.

A perusal of Verma’s case records show that between March 2006 and August 2009, his matter was listed seven times. Except for once, the case was adjourned each time because the respondent or the disbursal department had not filed its reply.

On 12 August 2009, the court issued “Rule” in the case, which means it directed the matter to be listed in regular course. Aneja explained that when a rule is issued in a case and gets admitted, it is heard as per sequence. “Such matters are taken up year-wise and it can take years before a particular case is heard again for final adjudication,” he said.

Therefore, Verma’s case came on board only in May 2014. At this juncture, Verma had already fought his other litigation on retiral dues. Since the disbursal department had not complied with the court order in that matter, Verma moved an application in the reimbursement case. This further prolonged the hearing of the main case as three dates were exhausted in getting to know whether the department had released the retiral dues or not.

Finally, on 7 August 2014, the HC issued the release order.

Between 2018 and 2019, Verma’s petition was listed twice but got adjourned because none of the parties were present in court. The case got pushed to the backburner due to Covid-induced restrictions on court hearings. Meanwhile, Verma died in November 2020.

In January 2022, Verma’s family filed an application to make his legal heirs a party in the case. This was allowed and the formalities were completed in February. Arguments in the case were finally heard on 13 August and 3 November, following which the judgment was reserved.

As for Sulakshana and her family, the ordeal doesn’t end with the verdict. Her father’s death has led to another round of litigation for them. This time, it’s related to Verma’s pensionary benefits.

(Edited by Geethalakshmi Ramanathan)