SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(UT) 964

Judgment reserved on: 19.06.2024

Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2024

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No.880 of 2022

Smt. Nidhi Saxena

..….....Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents

Presence:-

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C.

along with Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder for

the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.06.2021, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.07.2021, whereby, the claim of the petitioner seeking reimbursement of medical bills was rejected being time barred in view of the Government Order dated 28.07.2011 and further a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.4 to conduct pre-audit and accord approval of the bills submitted by the petitioner in view of recommendations made by respondent Nos.2 & 3 and to pay the medical bill amounting to Rs.6,34,030/- along with interest.

2.

The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that the husband of petitioner was in service as Supply Inspector with Food and Civil Supply Department, Haridwar. Husband of the petitioner fell ill and was undergone treatment w.e.f.

05.08.2016 to 19.08.2016 in Synergy Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun. Unfortunately, the life of petitioner’s husband could not be saved and he expired during treatment on 19.08.2016. After death of her husband, petitioner submitted claim for medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the treatment of her husband along with the bills and vouchers to respondent No.3. The amount of medical reimbursement, which was demanded by the petitioner, was Rs.6,34,030/-. Respondent No.3, in view of the Government Order No.679/fp0-3-2006-

437/2002 dated 04.09.2006, submitted those bills and vouchers to respondent No.4-Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, vide its letter dated 28.02.2017. The said bills and vouchers submitted by the petitioner through its department to the respondent No.4 was returned unpaid to the department by respondent No.4, on the ground that in view of Government Order dated 04.09.2006 read with Government Order dated 16.05.2016, the maximum time for raising claim for reimbursement of medical bills was six months, and, since, the claim of the petitioner was raised after the period of six months, the claim was time barred and accordingly, the same was returned back to the department vide order dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition).

After several correspondences made between the department and the respondent No.4, respondent No.4 refused to approve the bills for the same reason that the claim raised by the petitioner was time barred, and, finally, vide impugned order dated

28.06.2021, communicated to petitioner through letter dated 26.07.2021, the claim was rejected, relying upon the Government Order dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

3.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner, being a widow, was unaware of the time limit to raise the claim for reimbursement, therefore, due to unavoidable circumstances, i.e. untimely death of her husband and burden of raising her minor children, delay occasioned in submitting the bills and raising the claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of her husband. It is the case of the petitioner that the bills were genuine and were duly examined and verified and forwarded by the Competent Authority of the department of the petitioner’s husband to respondent No.4 on three occasions. Merely on the ground of delay, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied.

4.

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. The ground which is taken by respondent No.4 for not entertaining the claim and payment of the medical reimbursement, have been pleaded in Para 3 of its counter affidavit. The same is quoted below:-

    “Para 3: It is pertinent to state here that the petitioner i.e. Smt. Nidhi Saxena, w/o Late Vijay Prakash Saxena has submitted the claim of medical reimbursement of her husband for the expenditure of his treatment from 05-08-2016 to 19-08-2016 after the expir




          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top