Virendra Kumar Mishra vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and Another

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2025 which has been passed with the observation that the medical bills for reimbursement submitted by the petitioner is not as per the provision of clause 11(A) of उत्तर प्रदेश सरकारी सेवक (िचिकत्सा पिरचयार्) िनयमावली, 2011( hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2011').

¶13

The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that several set of writ petitions were instituted by the petitioner for medical claim, but ultimately in Writ A No. 8260 of 2024, the final judgment and order was passed on 17.12.2024, wherein, the order impugned therein, dated 09.05.2024 was quashed and the respondent herein were directed to pass a fresh order regarding the medical reimbursement of the petitioner in accordance with the 'rules 2011.'

¶14

He added that after the order dated 17.12.2024was passed by this Court, the Director, Finance, U.P. Jal Nigam(Rural) passed the order on 10.11.2025. He submitted that the bills which have been submitted by the petitioner are as per the rules 2011 and only issue which crop up before the respondent authorities are that whether, the word 'अपिरहायर्' has been cut by the Doctor himself ?, or it is otherwise interpolation in the record. He submitted that there is not a single whisper in the order impugned dated 10.11.2025 regarding abovesaid cutting in the Emergency Certificate, therefore, the

¶15

WRIA No. 168 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

order has been passed without application of mind, thus, submission is that the order dated 10.11.2025 is unsustainable.

¶18

On the the other hand, in-compliance of the order dated 12.01.2026, Mr. Aditya Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed the original record before this Court.

¶19

From perusal of the aforesaid record, at page 175, it is apparent that on the letter written by the Chief Account Officer dated 29.10.2018 to Doctor Nakul Sinha, Senior Consultant, Sahara Hospital, Lucknow, it is reported by him 'अपिरहायर् पिरिस्थित गलती से काट िदया गया'. Further it is also apparent that the issue with respect to the emergency treatment can be dealt with by taking into consideration of the letter dated 29.10.2018, but perhaps, it has been ignored by the authority concerned, who has passed the order impugned.

¶20

Mr. Aditya Mohan submitted that in fact the letter was sent for verification of the letter dated 29.10.2018 to the Doctor concerned, but no response has been received as yet.

¶21

Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner submitted the medical bills for reimbursement, which was disputed by the department and a letter was sent on 29.10.2018, which reveals that Doctor Nakul Sinha, Senior Consultant of Sahara Hospital, who respondent and has given his note over the said letter that 'अपिरहायर् पिरिस्थित गलती से काट िदया गया'. This itself is one of the clarificatory note regarding the cut over the emergency certificates.

¶22

In this view of the matter, the order impugned dated 10.11.2025 is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed.

¶23

Matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2/Chief Account Officer, U.P. Jal Nigam, Rural, Lucknow, to pass a fresh order with respect to payment of medical bills of the petitioner, within period of four weeks, from the date of this order, considering its own record/letter dated 29.10.2018 and the note made thereunder by the Senior Consultant, who has in fact treated the petitioner.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.

¶25

This Court has noticed that the department has taken various grounds on several occasions for rejection of the claim of the medical bills of the

¶26

WRIA No. 168 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

petitioner, therefore, the respondent-department is directed to consider the case of the petitioner with respect to the genuineness of issuance of Emergency Certificate, wherein, the word 'अपिरहायर्' is stated to have cut.

¶29

Needless to say that if the respondent-department sought any verification from the Doctor concerned, the same shall be considered and responded by the Doctor who has issued the certificate.

¶30

January 20, 2026 Mayank

¶31

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH 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?

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

Abhishek Trivedi and 3 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Mini. of Edu. New Delhi and 5 Others

Shiv Kali Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Raman Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag 4 Lko and Another

Jagdish Prasad Upadhayay in Fir Jagdish Upadhayay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Maroof Ahmed Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others