Allowed

Tarun Choudhury v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC7 Aug 2017WP(C)/301/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, challenged a communication returning his medical reimbursement bills due to late submission and missing certificates. The court directed the petitioners to resubmit bills with an explanation for delay and referred certificates, deferred the delay calculation, and ordered a six-week response time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to resubmit medical bills with delay explanation and referral certificates; delay period in filing to be condoned; respondents to decide within six weeks.

Tarun Choudhury Vs the State of Tripura and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C)301 of 2017

¶3

Shri Tarun Choudhury, son of late Jatindra Mohan Choudhury, of Kalyanpur, Gopal Nagar, P.S. Kalyanpur, P.O. Kalyanpur Bazar, District : Khowai, Tripura, PIN : 799203

¶4

…………Petitioner

¶5

– Vs –

¶6

The State of Tripura,

¶7

to be represented by the Commissioner/Secretary Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799006

¶8

The Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, Akhaura Road, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799001

¶9

The Principal, Dasarath Deb Memorial College, Khowai, Tripura, PIN : 799201

¶10

The Secretary Finance Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799006

¶11

¶12

¶13

*As per Hon’ble Courts order dated 27.03.2017 passed in WP(C) 301 of 2017 the names of the respondents No.5 & 6 are deleted from the array of parties.

¶14

………… Respondents

¶15

B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶16

For the petitioner : Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. K. Nath, Advocate Date of delivery of : 07.08.2017 Judgment and order Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

WP(C)301 of 2017

¶19

Judgment and Order (Oral)

¶20

Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for quashing the communication No. F.3(5)/DDMC/KH/15725 dated 22.02.2016 [Annexure-B to the writ petition] issued by the Principal in Charge, DDM College, Khowai whereby three medical reimbursement bills along with travelling allowance bill submitted by the petitioner has been returned. The judgment and order dated 04.10.2016 as delivered in Criminal revision petition being CRL. REV. P. No. 76 of 2016 has some relevance in this writ petition. But the main controversy is not rooted or related to the controversy which has been determined by the said order dated 04.10.2016.

¶22

The grievance here is that petitioner had submitted reimbursement bills for treatment of his daughter namely Tanisha Chowdhury. Since the petitioner has been working as the Assistant Professor in the said college, he is otherwise entitled to medical reimbursement of expenses incurred in the treatment of his daughter.

¶23

By the impugned communication, the respondents have submitted that the bills submitted for the period of treatment from 15.10.2014 to 24.06.2015 was submitted belatedly meaning after 90 days from the day of completion of the treatment. It has

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

WP(C)301 of 2017

¶26

been stated that the Finance Department memorandum under No. F.10(10)FIN(G)/2014 dated 20.10.2014 postulates that the bill shall be filed and submitted to the competent authority within 90 days from the day of completion of the treatment. The bills for the treatment for the period from 02.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 was filed without the referral certificate of the standing medical board and beyond the period of 90 days. The Medical reimbursement bills for the period from 25.11.2015 to 09.12.2015 has similarly been returned by the said communication dated 22.02.2016 for not enclosing the referral certificate by the medical board. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision as communicated by the letter dated 22.02.2016 has approached this court for interference.

¶27

Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there was some unavoidable circumstances which prevented the petitioner from submitting the medical reimbursement bill in time. The respondents should have enquired into the reasons the delay and thereafter would have taken the decision. But without any such effort, the respondents have returned the medical bills. So far the medical reimbursement bills for the period from 25.11.2015 to 09.12.2015 are concerned it was returned not for belated submission, but for not enclosing the referral certificate. If the referral certificate is available with the petitioner, the petitioner shall resubmit the bills with the referral certificate. For the resubmission, the respondents shall not raise any objection on the ground of delay. As that would be the rectified form of the bill, they should decide the bill in accordance

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

WP(C)301 of 2017

¶30

with the rule. So far the bills relating to the period from 15.10.2014 to 24.06.2015 and 02.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 are concerned the petitioner shall resubmit those bills with a special application assigning the reasons for delay and to the competent authority. So far the bills relating to the period from 02.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 is concerned, in addition to such application explaining the delay, the petitioner shall file the referral certificate, if any with the bills that would be resubmitted.

¶31

Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that according to the government policy for filing the medical bills there is a time limit for the claims. He has referred to the provision in this from the CS(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1965 in the form of guidelines. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further submitted that a similar provision has also been adopted in the State of Tripura and the Finance Department has issued the due notification. The said guidelines as incorporated in the Swamy’s compilation on the medical reimbursement read as under :

¶32

“It has been decided that final claims for reimbursement of medical expenses of Central Government servants in respect of a particular spell of illness should ordinarily be referred within three months from the date of completion of treatment as shown in the last Essentiality Certificate issued by the Authorized Medical Attendant/Medical Officer concerned. The controlling authorities shall also be empowered not to entertain a medical claim not preferred by a Central Government servant within three months of the completion of the treatment where they are not satisfied with the reasons put forth by the Government servant for late submission of the medical claim or where the claim prima facie is incomplete.”

¶33

It further appears that the Central Government has

¶34

also adopted a policy that the claim of reimbursement should be received within 3 months. However, subject to certain conditions,

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

¶37

the Department/ Ministries may condone the delay beyond 3 months.

¶38

From reading of both the provisions and the guidelines it is transparent that the period of 3 months is not absolute. If the officer can show the reasons which would justify the condonation, the concerned authority may condone such delay. That is the reason why the petitioner has been asked to file the proper petition explaining the belated submission of the reimbursement bills for the period as stated above.

¶39

In the circumstances and having observed as above, the petitioner is directed to resubmit the medical reimbursement bills along with the petition application explaining the delay for the period from 15.10.2014 to 24.06.2015 and 02.09.2015 to 30.09.2015. In order to meet the deficit they can also file the referral certificate obtained from the medical board for the period from 02.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 and 25.11.2015 to 09.12.2015. For resubmission, the respondents shall not add the period from the day of submission of the medical reimbursement bills to the day of resubmission of the medical bills as the delay in filing the medical reimbursement bills. That period shall stand automatically condoned. On resubmission of such medical bills, the respondents are directed to consider those bills within a period of six weeks. If the bills are found in form, they shall reimburse within the said stipulated period.

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed to the

¶43

extent as indicated above.

¶44

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of

¶46

the respondents, he shall be at liberty to approach this court.

JUDGE

Sabyasachi.B

Page 6 of 6

Tarun Choudhury v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Choudhury v. the State of Tripura 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

Pradip Das Vs Muslim Kabarstan Suraksha Committee and Ors.

Ali Rani Deb Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Shyamal Chakraborty Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura Anganwadi Karmi O Sahayika Oikya Samiti Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Safiqur Rahaman Vs Md. Najir Ali and Ors.

Safiqur Rahaman Vs Najir Ali and Anr.