Allowed

Virendra Kumar Mishra v. U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2024WRIA/8260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement under the State Government Rules, 2011, based on a prior judgment, despite the claim being processed under the 2016 Rules. The court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to pass a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of rejection is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Medical Care Rules, 2011 within four weeks.

Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs U.P. Jal Nigam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84799

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8260 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Mishra

¶5

Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko And Another

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kishor Pandey,Tanveer Ahmad Lari

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- Samir Om,Aditya Mohan

¶8

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents yet he does not intend to file a reply thereto.

¶11

The aforesaid statement is recorded.

¶12

Under challenge is the order dated 09.05.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶13

Admittedly, the medical reimbursement pertains to the medical bills of the years 2017-2018. An amendment in Regulation 31 of the U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 1978") has been made.

¶14

Even prior to it, the respondents have issued the 2016 Rules namely Medical Attendance Rules, 2016. (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2016").

¶15

Whether the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement is to be governed by the Rules, 2016 or by the

¶16

State Government Rules namely Medical Care Rules, 2011 is no longer res integra considering the judgment of this Court passed in Writ A No.2000284 of 2014 in Re: Mohammad Aslam and 4 Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 13.02.2023, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition, wherein this Court has held that that the petitioners of the said case, being employees of the Jal Nigam, are entitled to the benefit of the Medical Care Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2011") .

¶17

In the instant case, as already indicated above, the amendment in Regulation 31 of the Regulations, 1978 has been made on 08.07.2022. The medical reimbursement, as already indicated above, pertains to the years 2017-18 and consequently, would not be covered by the amendment which has been made subsequently.

¶18

The claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement has been considered and rejected by the respondents under the Rules, 2016.

¶19

Once this Court, in the case of the Mohammad Aslam (supra) , has already held that the case of the petitioners would be covered by the Rules, 2011, as applicable to the State Government, and also considered that the amendment in the Regulation 31 of the Regulations 1978 has only be made in the year 2022 and in the instant case the medical reimbursement pertains to years 2017-18, consequently, it is the Rules, 2011 which would be applicable in the case of petitioner also.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The order impugned dated 09.05.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order regarding the medical reimbursement of the

¶21

petitioner in accordance with the Rules, 2011. Let such an order be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 S. Shivhare

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Kumar Mishra v. U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Mishra v. U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Secy., Education Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Kamta Prasad Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Minostry Commi. New Delhi and 2 Others

Girjesh Kumari Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Secondary and Ors.

Smt. Meena Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication Govt. New Delhi and 2 Others

Jagdish Prasad vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Its Managing Dir. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Ayyub Khan vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director Lko and 2 Others