Disposed

Sri S.v.Anjaneyulu, v. Superintendent

Telangana HC12 Dec 2006WP/18661/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee, filed a writ to quash the Lok Ayukta's rejection of his medical bill claim. The court directed him to resubmit the claim adhering to the department's advised procedure regarding admissible medicines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to resubmit bills claiming reimbursement as per respondents' advice; respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders.

Sri S.v.Anjaneyulu, Vs Superintendent — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18661 of 1996

Dated:05.12.2006

Between

S.V.Anjaneyulu

…..Petitioner

and

1.The Superintendent, Govt Ayurvedic Hosptial, Charminar Hyderabad and others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18661 of 1996

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the 1^st respondent vide proceedings No.1844/74/LOK/3-1/30/95 dated 2.1.1996, wherein the request of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical bills was rejected.

¶12

It seems that the petitioner is a retired employee and he worked as an Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Treasury and Accounts Department of the State Government. He is entitled to the benefits of the A.P. Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972 read with G.O.Ms.No.718 M & H (K1) Department, dated 26.11.1981. He submitted medical bills for reimbursement showing that he has purchased Ayurvedic medicines (1) Swarnayogaraja Guggulu

¶13

( 2 ) Amalikirasam. However, the 1^st respondent disallowed claim of the petitioner.

¶14

It appears that the petitioner approached Lok Ayukta about rejection of his claim by way of a Complaint No.1844 of 1995 and the said Complaint was rejected by an order dated 26^th December, 1995 on the ground that as per the information furnished by the Additional Director (Ayurvedic) Indian Medicines & Homeopathy Department, the two medicines ie., (1) Swarna Yogaraja Guggulu (2) Amaliki Rasam are not in the list of approved medicines. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless a list of admissible medicines is published and the Superintendent of the Hospital prescribed only such medicines as are admissible, his claim for reimbursement cannot be rejected.

¶16

The 1^st respondent has filed detailed counteraffidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated at paras 5 and 10, which read as under:

¶17

“In reply to para-7, it is submitted that in

¶18

the absence of the list of inadmissible medicines in Ayurveda in A.P. Indian Medical Attendents Rules, 1972, such of the medicines which are not included in the central list of admissible Ayurvedic Medicines are being disallowed from the claims. The Government of India have been addressed for a list of inadmissible Ayurvedic Medicines for the purpose of Medical Reimbursement to Government Servants/pensioners treated at Government Ayurvedic Hospitals under C.S. ( M.A.Rules 1944) vide Directorates letter No.26147/Acad.3/95, dated 2.1.1996 and the Government of India in their letter No.S14025/I/96, MS dated 1.7.1996 have advised to see the list of the inadmissible Ayurvedic Medicines in Appendix-XVI ( list of medicines admissibles) of Swamy’s Compilation of M.A. Rules 1944. Accordingly, the said list is being referred to while deciding the admissibility or otherwise of the claims for Medical reimbursement under Ayurvedic System of Medicine.

¶19

In reply to para 15, it is submitted that the petitioner is not competent to say about the essentiality of the medicines for which the reimbursement is claimed by him. The fullfledged Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Hyderabad can take care of the treatment with the admissible medicines. The petitioner cannot claim reimbursement of the inadmissible medicines. If the petitioner submits his claim, the same can be scrutinized and passed for the admissible amount, so that his parent

¶20

department can draw and disburse the amount. The delay in getting his claims cleared is only due to his unwanted correspondence and relucience to accept the admissible procedure.”

¶21

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to resubmit the bills claiming reimbursement as per the advise of the respondents. On filing such reimbursement claim application, the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders as per law.

¶22

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶23

05-12-2006

Sri S.v.Anjaneyulu, v. Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S.v.Anjaneyulu, v. Superintendent

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

Vudatha Sridevi, Vs The Joint Collector

Amara Prameela Devi, Vs The Joint Collector

Sri M.Tirupathi Reddy Vs The Prudential Cooperative Bank Ltd.

G.Purushotham Rao Vs Govt. Ap.

Merugumalla Marcy Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education

S.A.B. JAwid, Vs The Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.