Disposed

Gujrawati Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Mar 2011MJC/440/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court of Patna directed the State of Bihar to decide, within eight weeks, whether to grant Rs. 80,000 for medical treatment of the deceased petitioner's husband due to a lack of original expense vouchers caused by the hospital.

What did the court decide?

Order directing authorities to decide the claim within 8 weeks and settle dues within 4 months.

Gujrawati Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.440 of 2011 GUJRAWATI DEVI…………………………. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS……………. RESPONDENTS

¶2

----------For the petitioner :- Mr. Hirday Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shambhu Nath, A.C. to AAG-3

¶3

¶4

2 23-3-2011 Heard the parties.

¶5

Petitioner’s husband died in service as Sub-

¶6

Inspector of Police on 13-8-1990 due to blood cancer. He had been allowed advance of Rs.1,60,000/- for treatment at Tata

¶7

Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. After his death the petitioner received intimation to furnish vouchers showing expenses in treatment so that balance amount could be recovered from death-cum- retrial benefits. Since the petitioner did not have vouchers, her writ petition was disposed of directing the opposite parties to take a sympathetic attitude and contact the hospital to obtain details of expenses incurred in the treatment

¶8

of petitioner’s late husband. Along with show cause filed on

¶9

behalf of opposite parties a letter from Tata Memorial Hospital dated 7-3-2000 has been annexed as Annexure-B to show that during the relevant period the hospital did not keep expenditure records for individual patients and often patients

¶10

¶11

decide to buy medicines from out-side shops. The Additional Professor and Medical Oncologist has, however, mentioned that the cost of the treatment which was given to the petitioner’s husband could have come anything between Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.80,000/-.

¶12

According to the opposite parties the petitioner was invited to make a claim for any reasonable amount between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/- as the expenses incurred over the treatment of her husband but the petitioner did not respond and therefore the matter has not been finalized as yet.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a clear stand that in absence of any voucher or paper the petitioner is not in a position to make any categorical claim towards the amount spent on treatment but a clear stand is taken that the authorities themselves may decide how much should be allowed between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. Considering the hardship faced by the petitioner as well as travelling expenses it is expected that the authority will, if finds it possible, adjust the entire amount of Rs.80,000/- as indicated in the letter contained in annexure-B. However, the exact amount should be decided by the respondent authority because the

¶14

¶15

petitioner does not have anything further to furnish. Such decision should be taken expeditiously and in any case within eight weeks from today. After communicating the decision taken by the authorities they would be free to recover the balance amount in accordance with law and settle the payable dues without any delay, preferably within four months.

¶16

The contempt application is finally disposed of.

¶17

( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)

¶18

Naresh

Gujrawati Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujrawati Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Akalu Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Renu Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Smt.Lalita Devi Vs the Labour Commissioner,Govt.O

Ratish Kumar Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Tryambak Nath Mishra Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Hira Lal Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.