Allowed

Vaiju P.S., v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC9 Aug 2019WP(C)/15390/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, an employee of KSRTC, sought disbursement of a sanctioned medical reimbursement of Rs.1,76,622/-. The Court found no justification for the delay and directed immediate disbursement. It also directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority for the balance claim within the specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to disburse Rs.1,76,622/- within three weeks. Directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority for the balance claim within two weeks.

Vaiju P.S., Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

VAIJU P.S.,AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.SOMAN P.M., DRIVER CATEGORY CHANGED AS PEON, KSRTC KOTHAMANGALAM DEPOT, RESIDING AT PARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADY P.O. - 686 673. MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (IA),KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶13

4 THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶14

5 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVALLA DEPOT, THIRUVALLA P.O. - 689 101.

¶15

6 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTHAMANGALAM DEPOT, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶16

SRI. T.P.SAJAN, SC FOR KSRTC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, who entered in service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as Driver, who is granted category change in the year 2017 as Peon, and continuing as such in Kothamangalam Depot, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction and disburse the medical reimbursement claim made by him, in full, forthwith. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the sanctioned medical reimbursement amount, at the earliest.

¶22

On 06.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC was directed to get instructions as to whether any admitted amount towards medical reimbursement is remaining unpaid.

¶23

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶24

¶25

On 19.06.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶26

for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶27

“The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though he had applied for medical reimbursement of Rs.3,54,610 (Rupees Three lakhs fifty four thousand and six hundred and ten only), only an amount of Rs.1,76,622/- (Rupees One lakh seventy six thousand six hundred and twenty two only) has been sanctioned. It is submitted that even the amount that has been sanctioned is so far not disbursed. In such circumstances, there will be an interim direction to the respondents to disburse the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,76,622/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.”

¶28

On 22.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC sought time to get instructions as to the delay in disbursing the amount of Rs.1,76,622/- towards medical reimbursement, in terms of the order of this Court dated 19.06.2019.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC,

¶30

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶31

¶32

representing respondents 1 to 6.

¶33

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether there is any justification on the part of KSRTC in delaying disbursement of the amount due to the petitioner towards medical reimbursement in connection with heart valve replacement surgery conducted on 13.05.2016 in a private hospital at Ernakulam, as referred by the Medical Officer, Public Health Centre, Varappetty.

¶34

The claim for medical reimbursement made by the petitioner is for a sum of Rs.3,54,610/-. The 2^nd respondent Deputy Chief Accounts Officer in Ext.P5 order dated 22.07.2017 recommended only an amount of Rs.1,76,622/-, without intimating the petitioner the reason for not recommending the claim for the balance amount. Relying on Para XXV-clause (5) of Ext.P3 order dated 03.12.2018 of the 1^st respondent, the petitioner would contend that the expenses incurred for treatment of Cancer, Kidney Replacement Surgery,

¶35

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶36

¶37

Dialysis and Heart Operation will have to be allowed in full, over and above Rs.3 lakhs limit fixed in Para XXVclause (1). However, in Ext.P5 order dated 22.07.2017 addressed to the 5^th respondent Unit Officer, the 3^rd respondent has recommended only an amount of Rs.1,76,622/- and accorded sanction to the 5^th respondent to draw and disburse that amount towards the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner.

¶38

As per Ext.P6 memorandum dated 09.01.2013, the authority competent to sanction medical reimbursement up to Rs.3 lakhs is the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that the 4^th respondent has no authority to curtail the claim made by the petitioner for medical reimbursement.

¶39

Having considered the averments in the writ petition and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that the entitlement of the petitioner for payment of an amount

¶40

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶41

¶42

of Rs.1,76,622/-, towards medical reimbursement (which has already been sanctioned by the 2^nd respondent) is not in dispute. When such payment is in respect of a heart surgery, which the petitioner had undergone in the year 2016, I find absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents in delaying disbursement of that amount.

¶43

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to ensure that an amount of Rs.1,76,622/- in terms of Ext.P5 order is disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶44

The petitioner shall approach the competent authority in terms of Ext.P6 memorandum, for disbursement of the balance amount in terms of Para XXV-Clause (5) of Ext.P3 order dated 03.12.2018, by submitting a proper representation, within two weeks

¶45

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶46

¶47

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, who shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such request, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶50

AV/13/8

¶51

WP(C).No.15390 OF 2019(W)

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP TICKET FROM THE PH CENTRE VARAPPETTY AND DISCHARGE SUMMARY FROM THE LISIE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶56

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ANNEXURE VI OF THE PAY REVISION AGREEMENT 2012.

¶57

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGEHAVING CLAUSE XXV(5) OF THE BIPARTITE AGREEMENT, 2012.

¶58

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM SUBMITTED ON 06/06/2016.

¶59

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2017.

¶60

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 09/01/2013.

Vaiju P.S., v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaiju P.S., v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

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

Roy Mathew Vs Vellathooval Grama Panchayat

A.Chenthamara Vs the Manager, Canara Bank

Naushad Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

M.G. Rathnan, Vs District Telecom Committee

P.a.Vijayan Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

K.S.Raghavan Vs the Divisional Manager