Allowed

Bibitha G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2013WP(C)/21066/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PCS Junior/Higher Secondary School Teacher sought reimbursement for heart valve surgery expenses. Original bills were lost during processing; the court directed the state to treat certified copies as originals and decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to reimburse the petitioner's medical expenses within three months, without demanding missing original bills, as the loss was not her fault.

Bibitha G. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/14TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 21066 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

BIBITHA .G., BIBITHA NIVAS, VATTEKAD P.O., KOLLENGODE VIA, PALAKKAD, HSST (SENIOR), B.S.S.H.S.S,KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 024.

¶13

4. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTORATE, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.

¶14

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 21066 of 2013 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/07/2009 BY THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES SHOWING THE AMOUNT CHARGED.
EXHIBIT-P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/06/2010.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/10/2010 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/02/2011 FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/10/2011.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P9TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/12/2011 FROM THE PRINCIPAL. EXHIBIT-P10- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/12/2011 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P11TRUE COPY OF THE SPEED POST ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SHOWING RECEIPT OF EXTS-P9 AND P10 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P12- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/02/2012 SUBMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P13- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT-P12 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P14- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/07/2012. EXHIBIT-P15- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P16- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/01/2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶32

/TRUE COPY/

¶33

P.A.TO.JUDGE

¶34

sts

¶35

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶36

W.P.C. No.21066 OF 2013

¶37

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2013.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner is working as a Higher Secondary School Teacher in Brahmananda Swami Sivayogi Higher Secondary School, Kollengod in Palakklad District. Seeking reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner in connection with her heart valve replacement surgery conducted at Sree Uthradam Thirunal Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 06.07.2009 the petitioner submitted application on 18.07.2009 along with the originals of the relevant bills. Earlier, the application was returned by the 2^nd respondent to the office of the 3^rd respondent for the reason that the amount as per the essentiality certificate was less than the amount claimed. Later, after curing the defect the same was resubmitted to the 3^rd respondent on 10.06.2010 and in turn the 3^rd respondent forwarded the same to the 2^nd respondent on 29.10.2010. It was again returned seeking some more clarifications and subsequently it was resubmitted on 19.02.2011 along with all required documents. Despite resubmission of such documents along with the applications, no

¶40

W.P.C.No.21066 of 2013

¶41

¶42

action was taken thereon by the respondents in the matter of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner. That constrained the petitioner to submit an application under the Right to Information Act. As per Ext.P13 the petitioner was informed that despite the earnest efforts, the documents referred to in Ext.P12 could not be traced out. According to the petitioner, on query, it was revealed that the very application and also the bills submitted by the petitioner are missing and could not be traced out. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a fresh application, along with certified copies of the required documents, through the Principal of the Higher Secondary School in which she is working. It is the delay in the matter of processing the same

¶43

and taking a final decision thereon, in the matter of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner that constrained the petitioner to file the above writ petition.

¶44

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent in this writ petition. A scanning of the contentions therein would reveal that the fact that the petitioner had submitted an application seeking reimbursement of the expenses incurred in connection with her treatment along with the original

¶45

W.P.C.No.21066 of 2013

¶46

¶47

documents is not in dispute. That apart, it is also not in dispute that the original of such documents viz. the medical bills are not available with the respondents and they were either lost or missing. Thus, it is obvious that no flaw can be attributed on the part of the petitioner for the missing of the originals of the bills. As noticed herein before, the petitioner had subsequently submitted fresh application, along with certified copies of the relevant bills, to enable the respondents to process the application to consider the question of reimbursement.

¶48

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned Government Pleader handed over the copy of a letter bearing No.A6-12696/2013 dated 21.10.2013 of the 3^rd respondent addressed to the 1^st respondent. It would reveal that, all the relevant documents including the photocopies of the bills, along with the applications, have been submitted for consideration of the Government. It would further revealed that the 3^rd respondent has requested the Government to consider and sanction the same as a special case. Such a request was made for the reason that in the matter of missing of the originals of the documents, no flaw could be attributed on the petitioner. In view

¶49

W.P.C.No.21066 of 2013

¶50

¶51

of the rival submissions and the position obtained as above, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition as hereunder:

¶52

The 1^st respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by her in connection with her heart surgery valve replacement conducted at Sree Uthradam Thirunal Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of the peculiar circumstances obtained in this case there will be further direction that the request of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical expenses shall not be repicted on ground of the missing of the originals of the relevant bills. In other words, the respondents shall act upon the certified copies of the bills produced by the petitioner, along with the application as the originals of the bills were lost not on account of any flaw from the part of the petitioner.

¶53

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶55

Bibitha G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bibitha G. v. State of Kerala

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

V.K.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

V.T.Gigimon Vs the State of Kerala

Lakshmi Vs the Director

The Manager, St.Thomas U.P.School Vs Sri.S.Shajahan

Manu Vs State of Kerala

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal Vs Kerala Water Authority