Om Prakash Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 5 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:559

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12353 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Saxena

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Smita Chitranshi,Mahendra Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Srivatava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶9

The grievances raised by the petitioner in the present case is with regard to the order dated 01.04.2024 by which the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division-I, Moradabad has rejected the application of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical expenses on the treatment of his wife Shashi on account of the fact that the said claim has been made after a period of 12 years while according to the respondents, the said claim has to be filed within a period of three months.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner retired form the post of Fitter from the Irrigation and Water Resources (Tubewell) Division, -1st, Morabad on 31.07.2016. Subsequent to his retirement he has been given his post retiral dues and the grievances of the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to reimbursement of treatment of his Wife Shashi Bala who was diagnosed Carcinoma and referred to further treatment by the Medical Officer, District Moradabad and consequently she was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi form 19.03.2023 to 17.03.2023.

¶11

It has further been stated that from Sir Ganga Ram Hosptial, New Delhi she was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer and Research Institute for further management but due to poor financial position of the petitioner, he got the said treatment done from Shri Ram Murti Smarak Medical College, Bareilly where she expired on 18.07.2023.

¶12

The petitioner suffering from trauma on the death of his wife could not submit the bills in time and were submitted by hand

¶13

in June, 2023 but no cognizance of the same was taken and was formally received in the office of the respondents only in March, 2024 which was processed and by means of impugned order dated 01.04.2024 his claim has been rejected only on account of the fact that he has submitted the bills after expiry of 12 months.

¶14

He further submits that the said order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as according to Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Reimbursement) Rules, 2011 Clause 23 provides for time limit within which the claim has to be made and it has been provided that in ordinary circumstance the said claim has to be made within three months and in case there is any delay then the claim has to be processed only after getting due approval from the Secretary of the Department.

¶15

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 01.04.2024, it is clear that respondent no. 5 i.e. Executive Engineer, Moradabad has rejected the claim of the petitioner at his own level without referring the matter to the departmental Secretary who according to the Rules would have been competent authority to decide the aspect with regard to the limitation within which the medical reimbursement could be processed.

¶16

He further submits that once the rule clearly provides that ordinarily the claim has to be made within three months and in case there is any delay then the matter has to be processed at the level of the Secretary of the Department, then the respondent No. 5 would not have passed the impugned order.

¶17

Accordingly, there is no doubt respondent No. 5 is denuded of any authority to have considered and passed any order with regard to medical claim of the petitioner in case the said claim was submitted beyond the period of three months. Even if it was submitted beyond the period of 3 months, the appropriate course of action should have been referred the matter to the Secretary of the Department which have not been done in the present case and accordingly, the order dated 01.04.2024 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶19

In light of the aforesaid facts and considering the Rule 23 of the Rules of 2011 undoubtedly the order dated 01.04.2024 rejecting the medical claim of the petitioner on account of the submissions of the claim with a delay is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside.

¶20

The respondent No. 5 i.e Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division-I, Moradabad is directed to forward the claim of the petitioner to the Secretary of the Department in terms of Rule 23 of The Rules of 2011 forthwith, say, within a period of 10 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The Secretary of the Department on the other hand is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner expeditiously, say, within a period of 8 weeks from the date the same is submitted before him and pass a reasoned order and inform the decision to the petitioner. In case he is on the opinion that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed then the amount of medical reimbursement shall be paid to the petitioner with expedition not later than six week from the date of passing of the said order.

¶21

In light of the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶22

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Ravi/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Sewa and Pusthar and Ors.

Shashi Kant Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Madhubala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko and 4 Others

Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Shyam Bali Yadav Pno No. 840600255 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others