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

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Sarwat Jahan Fatema – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India and Ors – Respondent
CWJC 16440/2018



Advocates:
['Rakesh NarayanSingh', '', 'Kanhaiya Pandey', 'Prabhat Ranjan Singh', 'S D SANJAY ADDL SOC GEN', '', 'Sujeet Kumar Sinha', 'Satyavrat Verma']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16440 of 2018

======================================================

Sarwat Jahan Fatema, Wife of Late Md. Nasim Ahmed, Address- 305, Sharf

Apartment, Frazer Road, Opposite- Doordarshan, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India.

2.

The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India,

New Delhi.

3.

The Secretary, Department of Information and Broad Casting, Government

of India, New Delhi.

4.

The Director General, Prasar Bharti.

5.

The Director General, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.

6.

The DDA (S-IV) Officer of Director General, Doordarshan, New Delhi.

7.

The Deputy Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Advocate

Mr. Kanhaiya Pandey, Advocate

For U.O.I.

:

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, C.G.C.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 03-11-2022

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. Respondents have filed I.A. No. 02 of 2022 to

recall the order dated 13.10.2022 in so far as depositing Rs. One

Lakh subject to outcome of the L.P.A., but the same has not

been deposited for the reasons that order dated 13.10.2022 was

not uploaded within one week. Therefore, I.A. No. 02 of 2022

application is filed for recalling the order dated 13.10.2022.

Along with the I.A., certain documents have been furnished

Patna High Court CWJC No.16440 of 2018 dt.03-11-2022

2/9

relating to correspondences with the CGHS authorities.

Annexure-R-5 of I.A. No. 02 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022 reads as

under:

"OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Full reimbursement of medical claim in

respect of treatment of Late Shri Naseem Ahmad,

Ex-SEA, DDK Patna- regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to

Directorate

General

of

Doordarshan's

communication No. 3/7/2016-S-IV-2757 dated

14.09.2022 on the above mentioned subject and

to say that the case for full reimbursement of

Medical Claim in respect of treatment of Late

Shri Naseem Ahmad will be considered by the

High Powered Committee meeting scheduled to

be held on 17 October, 2022 at 03:30 PM in

terms of this Ministry's OM dated 22.05.2018.

2. Moreover, the Directorate General of

Doordarshan is requested to specify what surgical

procedure was done and as also provide the

following documents which are crucial for

coming to a conclusion in the meeting:-

(i) Investigating Reports with image

(ii) Hospital Bills

(iii) Death Summary

(iv) Discharge Certificate

(v) Daily case sheet

3. This issues with the approval of the Competent

Authority"

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

petitioner had submitted hospital bills, death summary,

discharge summary and daily case sheet. However, the

petitioner has not submitted investigation report with image. On

the other hand, CGHS authorities in paragraph-2 of the

aforesaid order dated 12.10.2022 requested for five documents.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16440 of 2018 dt.03-11-2022

3/9

Except first document no.1, investigation report with image, is

not available with the respondent-Doordarshan and so also the

petitioner has not provided. The official respondents cannot

insist for production of documents after lapse of eight years,

when the petitioner has already furnished hospital bills, death

summary, discharge certificate and other material information in

the year 2014 and the fact that the official respondents had slept

over the matter and they cannot insist for production of

documents in the year 2022. Therefore, I.A. No. 2 of 2022

stands rejected in so far as the recalling of order dated

13.10.2022 without waiting f

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