Anurag Mehrotra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Heard petitioner in person, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf opposite party no.1 and Mr. Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.4 stands dispensed with.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner today is taken on record.

¶11

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for reimbursement of medical claims amounting to Rs.72,980/- and Rs.7,703 totaling to Rs.80,683/-. Further prayer has been made for grant of interest on aforesaid amounts and for return of original prescriptions submitted by petitioner. Prayer has also been made for a direction to opposite parties to provide information as sought by means of letters dated 24.12.2024 and 26.12.2024.

¶12

Succinctly stated, the primary dispute hinges upon document annexed as SRA-01 to supplementary affidavit dated 10.11.2025, which as per submission of petitioner in person pertains to prescriptions amounting to Rs.80,683/- which was submitted to doctor concerned for verification and subsequent reimbursement by department concerned. It is submitted that the said documents were received by one Dr.Anurag Tripathi who was a Senior Resident in the University but the same were never verified and subsequently, the opposite parties gave an explanation that the said documents were never received by doctor concerned.

¶13

WRIA No. 5965 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Petitioner in person has adverted to documents brought on record as Annexures SRA-02 and SRA-03 as well as SRA-04 of said supplementary affidavit to substantiate that the signature of the said doctor in the said documents is the same as that indicated in SRA-01 and therefore clearly indicates mala fide intention on part of doctor concerned for not verifying the said documents and in fact concealing the same. It is also prayed that a C.B.I. enquiry should be instituted in the said matter to ascertain the truth.

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 has refuted the submissions advanced by petitioner in person with submission that the document brought on record as Annexure SRA-01 to the supplementary affidavit was in fact never received by the doctor concerned who has also filed his personal affidavit dated 24.11.2025 clearly stating that the said document was never received by him.

¶17

On the basis of instructions, learned counsel for answering opposite parties submits that notwithstanding the said controversy, in case petitioner has copies of the prescriptions and bills available with him, verification process can still be done.

¶18

At this juncture, petitioner in person submits that since the original prescriptions and bills have already been submitted and received by doctor concerned, he does not have photocopies of aforesaid prescriptions and bills. It is also submitted that the said medicines were bought online and duplicate bills are also unavailable.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by petitioner in person, learned counsel for opposite parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that the primary dispute pertains to reimbursement of an amount of Rs.80,683/- claimed by petitioner for which purpose, Certificate-A is said to have been submitted by him along with the original prescriptions and bills on 28.10.2024. The said document contains signature of one Dr. Anurag Tripathi identifying himself as Senior Resident, K.G.M.U.

¶20

In pursuance of directions issued earlier, personal affidavit dated 24.11.2025 has been brought on record identifying deponent as Dr. Anurag Ambikaprasad Tripathi and in paragraph-2 states that he is the same person who is also known as Dr. Anurag Tripathi and was previously employed as Senior Resident with the University. It has been stated in paragraph-9 of the personal affidavit that pursuant to

¶21

WRIA No. 5965 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

directions issued by this Court, a letter 17.11.2025 was sent to him by the Head of Department, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine seeking his explanation and in reply thereto he had submitted a letter dated 18.11.2025 stating that he has not received any such bills or cash memos for purposes of medical reimbursement from petitioner and that the documents purportedly bearing his signature are forged and fabricated. In paragraph-8 of the personal affidavit, there is categorical denial of having received any bills or cash memos from petitioner brought on record by means of document, Annexure SRA01 to supplementary affidavit.

¶24

Petitioner in person has denied the aspect that Dr. Anurag Ambikaprasad Tripathi and Dr. Anurag Tripathi are the same person. It is submitted that personal affidavit has in fact been filed by some other person claiming himself to be Anurag Tripathi.

¶25

Petitioner has also adverted to supplementary affidavit filed to state that he has also brought on record photograph of Dr. Anurag Tripathi who is indicated as Assistant Professor, Department of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, KGMU and states that the photograph appended to personal affidavit dated 24.11.2025 are of two different persons.

¶26

Nonetheless, it is quite evident that the aspect as to whether the personal affidavit pertains to the same person or not involves disputed questions of facts, which this Court does not find appropriate to be addressed in writ jurisdiction since prima facie it appears that both names are of the same person.

¶27

In view of submissions of learned counsel for answering opposite parties, query was posed before petitioner as to whether any duplicate or photocopies of the prescriptions were available with petitioner but he has denied of having any such photocopies, duplicate prescriptions or bills.

¶28

In such circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate for entertaining any roaming enquiry with regard to allegations made by petitioner.

¶29

Since neither the original nor even photocopies or duplicate copies are available, the relief as prayed for in this petition cannot be granted.

¶30

WRIA No. 5965 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶33

January 7, 2026 kvg/-

¶34

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anurag Mehrotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Mehrotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ranjita Rai and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Sarita Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar U.P. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Constable Drivers (Cdr), Personnel NO.060590422, Sunil Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Mehrotra vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Establishment Railway Board Ministry of Railways New Delhi and 3 Others

Vijendra Kumar (S.I. Clerk, PNO-961240024) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others