Allowed

Mr.K.Desikan, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC6 Nov 2019WP(MD)/7791/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting medical reimbursement on the grounds of delay. The Court directed respondents to reconsider the claim on merits without reference to delay and to pay the eligible amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of rejection set aside; respondents directed to consider claim afresh on merits within a time frame fixed by the Court.

Mr.K.Desikan, Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7791 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI W.P(MD)No.7791 of 2019 and

¶6

W.M.P(MD).Nos.6185 & 6186 of 2019

K.Desikan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Secretary to Government Finance Department

¶11

St.George Fort, Chennai

¶12

2.The Joint Registrar Cum Managing Director

¶13

Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited

¶14

Madurai

¶15

3.The General Manager

¶16

Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Madurai ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certioarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.373/17-18 E4, dated 24.07.2018 and consequently, direct the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred to the petitioner's son namely D.Saran Desik for the treatment taken at Apollo Hospital, Madurai.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Chakkravarthi For R1 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶19

For R2 & R3 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement on the ground of delay.

¶22

2.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, on instructions, submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 will consider the claim of the petitioner without referring to the delay of the petitioner and will pay the eligible amount based on the eligibility, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

1/2

¶24

W.P(MD)No.7791 of 2019

¶25

3.Recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.373/17-18/E4, dated 24.07.2018 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh without referring to the delay, on merits.

¶26

With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS III)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

msa To

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government Finance Department

¶32

St.George Fort, Chennai

¶33

2.The Joint Registrar Cum Managing Director

¶34

Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Madurai

¶35

3.The General Manager

¶36

Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Madurai

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.B.CHAKKARAVARTHI, Advocate ( SR-96409[F] dated 06/11/2019 )

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, Advocate ( SR-96521[F] dated 06/11/2019 )

¶39

W.P(MD)No.7791 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.6185 & 6186 of 2019 06.11.2019

¶40

KK/SAR/26.11.2019/2P-6C/

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

2/2

Mr.K.Desikan, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.K.Desikan, v. the Secretary to Government

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

M.Rajendran, Corporation Vs the Commissioner / Special

S.Suresh, Vs the Managing Director

The Senior Regional Manager Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour

A.Vimala Vs The Teachers Recruitment Board

M.Radhakrishnan, Vs the District Collector

Tmt.J.Latha Rani, Vs the Director of Elementary