Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
MANISH MATHUR
Rukaiya Bano – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of U.P. Home Guards Lko. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for medical reimbursement filed (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. rejection without consideration is inappropriate (Para 4 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. interpretation of provisions must align with beneficial intent (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. distinction between mandatory and directory provisions (Para 9) |
| 5. order to reconsider reimbursement claim issued (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned to consider the aspect of medical reimbursement claim of petitioner for expenses incurred in treatment.
3. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 09.03.2026, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which petitioner's reimbursement claim was returned to her since it had not been submitted within a period of 30 days as required under paragraph 11(Kha) of Government order dated 27.12.2016.
4. Written instructions provided to learned State counsel do not indicate any other aspect for rejection of medical reimbursement claim of petitioner
The court determined that the 30-day submission requirement for medical reimbursement claims is directory and not mandatory, allowing the claim to be reconsidered despite late submission.
The time period indicated in Rule 11 and Rule 16 of the Rules of 2011 is mainly directory and not mandatory in nature, and the rejection of a medical reimbursement claim should be in consonance with ....
The principles of administrative fairness mandate that decisions impacting individuals' rights must be reasoned, and arbitrary rejections are unsustainable under the law.
Government employees are entitled to full medical reimbursement for emergency treatment, even in non-approved hospitals. Administrative authorities must process such claims within a reasonable timefr....
The court upheld the writ direction for medical reimbursement to a government employee injured on duty, emphasizing equitable considerations and the need for fair administrative action.
The office memorandum lacking state approval cannot negate statutory entitlements to medical reimbursement under established rules, affirming that resolutions alone do not carry legal force.
Rule mandating medical reimbursement claims only by beneficiaries read down to include legal heirs where beneficiary dies or incapacitated without surviving eligibles, as otherwise arbitrary classifi....
The requirement of prior recommendation/reference from a Medical Board for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in an out-of-state hospital is arbitrary and unjustified in emergent situations. ....
The right to medical claim cannot be denied solely because the hospital is not included in the government order. The factum of treatment and supporting records certified by doctors/hospitals are cruc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
