Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8346
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13799 OF 2021 Between:
1. Smt. Ch. Padma, W/o N. Ramakrishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 64 years, Superintendent (Retd.), AP. Social Welfare Fund, R/o H. No. 1-10-96, Upstairs, Sai Krupa, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. The AP. Social Welfare Fund, Social Welfare department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
Rep. by it's Chairman-cum The Chief Secretary, AP.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary (Social Welfare), Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
3. The Social Welfare Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Rep. by it's Secretary-cum The Director, AP. Social Welfare Fund.
4. The Joint Director, AP. Social Welfare Fund, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.13799 of 2021
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
“……to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting my representation dated 27.02.2019 for sanction of medical expenditure incurred for an amount of Rs.4,81,927/- for my treatment and Brain operation (Right Sylvian Tissue SAH with SDH due to Cruptured Supra Climoid Right ICA aneurysm) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unlawful and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to APIMA Rules, 1972 r/w G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 15.03.2005 by HM&FW (K1) department and consequently DIRECT the respondents to consider my representation for medical reimbursement and pass such other order or orders…”
2. The petitioner herein have made an application dated 15.07.2019 to the 1st respondent Chairman-cum-Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Department for medical reimbursement. The 1st respondent vide memo dated 25.07.2019, directed the 3rd respondent to furnish medical reimbursement proposal in the prescribed proforma in respect of Smt. Ch. Padma, Superintendent (Retd.), A.P. Social Welfare Fund, for taking further necessary action in the matter. In pursuance of the said memo, the 3rd respondent issued reply letter dated 27.09.2019 vide letter No.SWF/1307/2019 to the 2nd respondent rejecting the representation made for medical reimbursement by the petitioner.
3. The said memo was assailed in the Writ Petition on the ground of discrimination, stating that one Sri N. Rama Krishna Rao, Retired Dy. Director, A.P. Social Welfare Fund has been sanctioned claim for two times, first time Rs.43,240/- for his mother’s medical reimbursement and second time for Rs.12,600/- Similarly, Sri A. Yadagiri, Driver was also sanctioned an amount of Rs1,30,512/-, but the proposal relating to the petitioner was rejected. Hence, it is arbitrary and therefore, it is pleaded to direct the respondents herein to reimburse medical claim to the petitioner herein for an amount of Rs.4,81,097/-.
4. As rightly contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have considered the case of the other persons for medical reimbursement i.e. husband of the petitioner herein and the driver belongs to the same department.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per the rules the petitioner is not entitle for any medical reimbursement and also stated that those persons who are granted medical reimbursement were discharging duties as employees in the said department, where in the present case, the petitioner was retired from service. Therefore, he is not entitled for the medical reimbursement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was granted medical reimbursement after retirement.
7. Therefore considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is inclined to direct the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner for medical reimbursement, using the discretion of respondents herein, if not amount of rupees as claimed, but some amount, the said decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 09.05.2023
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
168 W.P.No. 13799 OF 2021 Date: 09-05-2023 Harin
