Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Shri Tarun Choudhury, son of late Jatindra Mohan Choudhury - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 301 of 2017
Decided On : 07-08-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. K. Nath, Advocate
The court emphasized the need for valid reasons to justify the condonation of delay in the submission of medical reimbursement claims, as per the CS(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1965 and Swamy’s Compilation on Medical Reimbursement.
Headnote:
Medical Reimbursement - Delayed Submission - CS(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1965 - Swamy’s Compilation on Medical Reimbursement - Central Government Servants - Condonation of Delay
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, submitted medical reimbursement bills for his daughter's treatment, which were returned by the respondents for being submitted belatedly and without the required referral certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to resubmit the bills with explanations for the delay and the referral certificate, and ordered the respondents to consider the bills within six weeks if found in order.
Issues: Delay in submission of medical reimbursement bills, requirement of referral certificate, condonation of delay
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period of 3 months for submission of medical reimbursement claims is not absolute and may be condoned if valid reasons are provided. The petitioner was directed to resubmit the bills with explanations for the delay and the required referral certificate.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.
1. Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 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.
5. 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 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.
6. 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
