Salauddin v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5181 of 2018 ====================================================== Salauddin, son of Late Saheb Hussain, Resident of Village- Usuri, Post Office- Sohilpatti, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Siwan, at present posted and working as an Assistant Teacher in Govt. Upgraded Middle School, Sareyan, Block-Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

4. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna

5. The District Magistrate, Siwan

6. The Civil Surgeon -cum- Chief Medical Officer, Siwan

7. The District Education Officer, Siwan

8. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan

9. The Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan

10. The Headmaster-cum- Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Govt. Upgraded Middle School, Sareyan, Block- Bhagwanpur Hat, DistrictSiwan

11. The District Treasury Officer, Siwan.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, AC to AAG15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 27-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to grant medical reimbursement to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has incurred medical expenditure on his treatment and after undergoing treatment the petitioner has raised a bill of Rs.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5181 of 2018(2) dt.27-03-2018 2/2 1,55,450/- but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and till date they have not examined the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement. It is further submitted that medical expenses were incurred by the petitioner in the year 2016 but even after lapse of about 2 years no action has been taken by the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement. Learned counsel placed reliance on Annexure-4 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement.

Since the respondents have not taken any decision as to the validity of the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement, the respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to take final decision, if not already taken, within a maximum period of three months from today and in the event the claim of the petitioner is found justified, necessary order may be passed to ensure medical reimbursement within the time frame indicated hereinabove.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U