Disposed

Duryodhan Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2023WPC/1615/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought direction for reimbursement of medical bills totaling Rs. 3,01,112 incurred while an employee. The court directed the Director to examine the grievance and ensure reimbursement within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Director to examine the grievance and ensure reimbursement within six weeks after coordinating with all departments.

Duryodhan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1615 of 2022

Duryodhan Mahto....

Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

The Under Secretary, Department of School, Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

The Director, Primary Education, Department of School, Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

The Accountant General of Jharkhand. Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶11

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate. For the State: AC to AAG.

¶12

04/20.01.2023: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to disburse the medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner was Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Ramgarh, when he suffered cardiac ailment. He took permission and went for his treatment, as he was advised for surgery. Sanction was accorded to him for undergoing treatment either in APOLLO Erba, Ranchi and MEDANTA City, Gurgaon, New Delhi. The petitioner went for treatment in both the places and had submitted a bill of Rs.3,01,112/-. The said bills were furnished before the respondent authorities, but they misplaced the same. Subsequently, the bill was recovered, but till date, as per the petitioner, no decision has yet been taken, nor any amount has been paid.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the now the petitioner has superannuated and the amount needs to be reimbursed at the earliest.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that suffice it would be, if a direction is given to the Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order.

¶16

Counsel for the State submits that if the petitioner approaches before the Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, he will look into the grievance of the petitioner and ensure that the legitimate amount, which the petitioner is entitled to receive, be disbursed after complying all the procedure.

¶17

Considering the said submissions, I direct the Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, to look into the grievance of the petitioner within four weeks and after coordinating with all Departments also will ensure that legitimate reimbursement be done in favour of the petitioner within six weeks thereafter.

¶18

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of .

¶19

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶20

Anu/- CP2.

Duryodhan Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duryodhan Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Das Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Niranjan Manjhi Vs General Manager Dhori Colliery Ms Central Coalfields Limited

Ankur Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Anil Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Rajmatia Devi Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ram Subhag Choudhary Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman