Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13318
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
V.J THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS – Respondent
RP 837 2023
C.K.SHERIN, R.AZAD BABU, MABLE C KURIAN
The court mandates prompt administrative action on pending recommendations without adjudicating on the underlying claims.
Headnote:
Entitlement - Medical Reimbursement - Not specified - Court directs consideration of pending recommendations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed medical reimbursement benefits after being recommended by the Alappuzha Municipality, asserting that the first respondent had not acted on those recommendations despite being eligible.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the first respondent to act on the pending recommendations regarding medical reimbursement submitted by the third respondent, clarifying that it did not decide on the merits of the case.
Issues: Whether the first respondent has an obligation to act on the medical reimbursement recommendations made by the third respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the first respondent to take timely action regarding recommendations already submitted, without judging the merits of the petitioner's claims.
Final Decision: The court ordered the first respondent to consider pending recommendations regarding medical reimbursement within one month.
ORDER
The petitioner asserts that, even though the 3rd respondent - Alappuzha Municipality has made Ext.P5 recommendation in his favour, thus being eligible to the medical reimbursement claimed by him, no action has been taken by the 1st respondent until now;
and therefore, that he has been denied such benefit as of today.
2. Smt.C.K.Sherin, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated that, even though this Court had, in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.9655/2023 – earlier filed by her client, directed the 3rd respondent to pay the entire pensionary benefits to him within a period of three months; and though, consequently, they recommended and submitted the bills as per Exts.P5 and P6 before the 1st respondent, with respect to medical reimbursement, same has not been yet considered or acceeded to. She, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for in this Review Petition be granted.
3. Smt.Mable C.Kurian - learned Senior Government Pleader, in response, submitted that, as is admitted in the pleadings of this Review Petition itself, the petitioner has already received his eligible DCRG and commuted value of pension. She submitted that she does not have instructions whether there is any proceeding pending before the 1st respondent, as asserted by the petitioner; but if it is so, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in the said respondent considering it; however, praying that this Court may not make any afÏrmative declarations as to the entitlement of the petitioner to any releif and leave it to the said authority to take a decision on the same in terms of law..
Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this petition to the limited extent of further directing the 1st respondent to immediately take up any recommendation pending before him by the 3rd respondent with respect to the medical reimbursement of the petitioner, as is evident from Exts.P5 and P6; and take a final decision on them, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The consequential order shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week thereafter.
I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions and that all of them are left open to be decided by the 1st respondent, during the afore exercise.
