Partly allowed

M.Vishnu Yadav v. Govt. of India

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023WP/26137/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order recovering Rs. 19.87 lakhs for medical expenses of his father, alleging suppression of facts led to the courtizing the recovery order and directing 50% waiver. The Court held that the petitioner cannot be penalized for official lapses regarding the initial card but directed recovery of 50% of claims on the revised card in interest monthly installments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to recover 50% of Rs. 15,82,982/- from the petitioner in liberal monthly installments.

M.Vishnu Yadav Vs Govt. of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

'^.-tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶6

wRr T PETITION NO: 26137 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.Vishnu Yadav, S/o. Late Pandu^{Yadav, aged 32 years,Workingas Technician-(2),} Centre for Celluiar and l\Iolecular^{Biology-(CCMB)Rl/o.H.No.5156, BHELlMach} Society, RC Puram, Hyderabad, T.S

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Govt. of lndia, rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Ministry of Science and} Technology, New Delhi - 110001.

¶12

2 Director General, Council of Scientific and^{lndustrial Research(CSIR)'} AnusandhanBhavan, 2 Rafi^{Marg, New Delhi-11000'1}

¶13

Director, Centre for Cellular^{and Molecular Biology(CCMB), Uppal Road'} Hyderabad-500007, T.S

¶14

Controller of Finance and Accounts,^{Centrefor Cellular and Molecular Biology} (CCMB), UppalRoad, Hyderabad-500007, T.S.

¶15

Controller of Administration,^{CSIR-CCMB, UppalRoad,Hyderabad-500007'} T,S

¶16

Drawing and Disbursing^Officer, Qentre^{for- CellularandMolecularBiology} (CCMB), UppalRoad, Hyderabad-500007, T.S

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226^{of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the^{nature of Writof Certiorari} (a) by calling for the records relating^{to and connectedwith the judgmentand} order rendered in o.A. No. 27012021^{dated 21-07-2023 0n the file of the Hon'ble} Central Admlnistrative Tribunal^{by holdingthe same as erroneous and}

¶19

unsustainable in iaw and quash the same. (b) also call for the records relating to and connected with Office l\r'lemorandum No. CCtr/B/X(1 34)/201.4-Estt. Dt. 16-032021 issued by the 5tr'Respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary apart from being violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and quash or set aside the same. (c) and consequentially direct the Respondents not to recover a sum of Rs. 19,87,982/- towards medical expenses in pursuance to Office Memorandum No. CCMB/X(134y2014-Estt dated 16.03 2021 of the 5th respondent incurred for the treatment of the father of the petitioner at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue an interim direction directing the respondents not to effect the recoveries vide Office Memorandum No. CCMB/X('134)/2014-Estt, Dt. 16-03-2021 issued by the Sth Respondent.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.S.V.SUBBA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (DEpUTy SOLtCtTOR GENERAL OF tNDIA)

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 6: SRI M.SRIKANTH, SC FOR CCMB The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMARJUKANTI

¶26

\V.P.No.26137 ol2O23

¶27

ORDER: /l'}rr I/o n'bh^Sn Justie Abknad^lAnar -lhaili)

¶28

m Aggrieved by the dated 21.072023, passed O.ANo.270 of 2021 by the Crntral Administrative Tribunal, Hydembad (for short 'the Tribunal), the present writ petition has been filed bythe petitioner. 02. Fleard Sri K.S.V. Subba Rao, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen^Kumar, leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri M Srikanth, leamed Sunding Cotrnsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6. 03. It is the case of the petitioner that initiallS^{he was} appointed as a Technician in the year²⁰¹⁴ and at^the

¶29

time of his initial appointment, he has fumished all the detafu of his family members including his fadrer's name, who was working on contract basis in BFIEL and drawing monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- p.rn- There was medical reimbursement faciliry with the respondens. Medical card was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 20L4 u.*rich can be used for hinuelf and his family members. The petitioner has surrendered his old medical card in order to obtain new medical card. Thereafter, the respondents have issued new medical card in 2016. fu his father was suffering from Kidney disease, the petitioner has used the said medical card to a tune of Rs.19,87,982/-. Subsequently, the respondents have issued proceedings on 16.08.2019 stating that since the petitioner's father was already employed on contract basis in BFIEL, the petitioner is not eligible for any

¶30

¶31

¶32

benefits under the medical card in respecr of his father. The respondents have entrusted the cce ro the Facts

¶33

Frnding Comminee to find our as ro how the officen of the respondenrc have issued the medical card to the petitioner, when he was nor eligible for medical card in respect of his father, who was already employed. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Facrs Finding C.ommittee has submiued a repon on 03.02.2020 and came to a conclusion that there was lapse on the part of the officen of the respondents in issuing medical card in 2014 and the Facts Finding Crmminee has given a finding that the pedtioner has nor disclosed the fact that his father was already employed in BFIEL on conrracr basis. Based upon the report of the Facts Finding Committee, the respondents have isstred proceedings dared 1,6.03.2021by directing the petitioner to refund an

¶34

{

¶35

amount of Rs.19,87,982/- lmmediately before initiating any further action against him as per Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached the Tribural by fihng O.ANo.2/O of 2021contending that he has not suppressed any of the facs and it is the respondents' officials who have erroneously issued drc medical card in his favour without verifying as to whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of such medical card or not. Because of the Iapses commined by the officials of the respondens, the petitioner should not be penalized. The Tribunal airle order dated 21.07.2023 partly allowed the OA by directing the respondents to waive 50olo of the amount ordered ro be recovered and recover balance 5Oo/o of the amount in liberal mont]ilv instalments. Flence, the present writ petition.

¶36

¶37

.-------:---l--.. 1--tF=----7.' /

¶38

kamed counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that as the petitioner has not.played anyfraud or misrepresented the facts, the respondents were not justified in ordering refund of Rs.tl,SZg\2/- from the petitioner aide proceedings dated L6.032021, and the Tribunal ought to have set aside the entire order of recovery from the petitioner by following the law laid down by the Apex C.ourt in State of Punjab and otbers ut RaJiq Masbi (Y/hire lVatlur)t, wherein it was held that the amounts paid to Group C & D emplolrees cannor be recovered. As the petitioner is a GroupD employee, by following the law laid down by ,h. Apex C-ourt n Rofiq h[aslti's case, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the entire recovery order dated 16.03.2021. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting the order passed bythe Tribunal.

I (tor5) 4 scc l'11

-m

()

\ij

Leamed Standing C-ounsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 had contended that the Facts Finding C-omminee has submimed a rcport stating that in 2014,the officers of the respondents were responsible in erroneously issuing the medical card in favour of the petitioner. But the Facts Finding Comminee held that the petitioner has suppressed about employment of his father on contract basis in BHEL. Though the petitioner has entered in the Service Register that his father was emplolad on contract basis in BFIEL, but in the application form v'hich was issued to the petitioner in J"rr*ry^{2016, the petitioner has not mentionedthe said} fact. Based upon the information furnished by the petitioner, the respondens have issued revised medical card n 20L6. The Tribunal has taken a lenient view against the petitioner and waived 50% of the amount.

¶44

¶45

Therefore, no ftrnher^{leniencycan be shown agairst the} petidoner and the^judgment of^{the Apeur} Co'rn n^Rafq Ma.rbi's has no application to the^{present case.} Admirtedly, the petitioner has suppressed^the information about emplolment of^{his father and hence,} the officen of the respondents^{have issuedthe medical} card in favour of the petitioner though^{the petitioner was} not entided for such medical facility^{in respect of his} father. Therefore, there are no^merits in^{the writ petition} and the same is liable to be^dismissed.

¶46

Flaving considered the rival submissions^madeby the leamed counsel on either side,^{this Court is of the} view that the Facts Finding C-ommittee^{has submitted a} report stating that the petitioner^{hassuppressed about his} father's employment and based^{upon suchsuppression,}

¶47

¶48

-q\r4

¶49

the responden$^{haveissued the medicalcard in respect} of his father^also.

¶50

07 - During the course^{o[ the alguments'learned} counsel appearing for^{the petitioneras well as learned} Standing Counsel^{appearing for the respondenshad} in{ormed this Coun^{that the petitioner hasavailed} Rs.4,OO,OOO/- benefit^{for treatmentof his father in the} medical card issued n^{2Ol4 and aroundRs-15,87,982l-} was used on the revised^{card whichq/asissuecln 2016.} A perusal of the Facts^{FindingCommitteerepoft} discloses that the petitioner^{was erroneouslyissued the} medical card during 2014. For the^{lapses on the part of} the officers of the respondens, the^{petitionercamotbe} penaJtzrd bydirecting refund^{of the amount.}

¶51

Admimedly, the petitioner^{has availed Rs.4,00,000/-} in the fint medical card^issued in^2014,and

¶52

¶53

( I

¶54

Rs.15,87 982/- in the second medical card issued in lear 2016. The Tribunal has directed waivei of 50olo of the total amount and recoveryof the balance 507o amount in

¶55

liberal mon*rly irutallmens.

¶56

¶57

Considering the totaliry of the circurnstances, rhis C-ourt deems it appropriate ro waive the total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- availed by the petitioner in the fint rrredical card issued in the irear 2Ol4 and the respondens can recover 50olo from the amount of Rs.15,82,982/-,whtch was already availed of by the petitioner rhrough the medical card issued n the year 20L6.

¶58

Therefore, the respondenm are directed to recover 50% from the amount of Rs.15,82,982/- n hberal mon*ily instalmenr from the petitioner.

¶59

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Tribunal in

O.ANo.27O of 2021, is modified ro the exlcnt indicated

¶64

above. No costs.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall srand

closed

ro,

//'RUE copy, ^rr:3'rf^ri,#?#::

¶70

] i.$,i1?fil1,?381it""' Ministry or science and rechnorosy, Govt. or rndia,

¶71

; , ig,fligq$ii6"rs,^{Hyderabad_500007,} T ffi dJ if.ffi ii r,sfi [ ffi IT.i :: :

¶72

;.ifd;I41"ffi[+;,:,[n**:i,"*'::H{:r.:.ffi rt;:ffi "i;:::,",::

¶73

affi{flr'i,S:t**{rgqlEffi^{il;*i,l,,:ri#il":,:.:",. j:;} igff^{33 t";[!"RrKANrH, sc ror ccMB ropuc]}

A)'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012023

k\E STAI €
(
Je t
o 2 I N0\J 20?3 C)
| .,;" c a(-l'

¶79

ORDER

¶80

WP.No.26137 ot 2023

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

M.Vishnu Yadav v. Govt. of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vishnu Yadav v. Govt. of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narra Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Utkur Sumathamma Vs The State of Telangana

The Engineer-in-Chief, Vs J. Haribabu S/O J. Ramakrishna

A Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, Vs Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

G.S.Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 others