Mr. D. Krishna Mohan, Hyderabad v. Chief Secretary, State Of Ts, Secretariat, Hyd And Another

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN WRIT APPEAL No.354 of 2017 Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian) Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Writ Petition praying for reimbursement of the expenses of his and his wife's medical treatment, the writ petitioner has come up with the above appeal. 2.

Heard the appellant appearing as party-in-person. 3.

From the facts narrated by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant was employed as a Medical Representative in a public sector company, by name, Hindustan Antibiotics Limited. After he retired, he pursued a Degree in Law and also got enrolled as an Advocate. 4.

Complaining that he and his wife had certain ailments for which they had taken treatment in two corporate hospitals, the appellant made representations to various authorities for reimbursement of the expenses. On the ground that those representations did not evoke any response, the appellant filed the Writ Petition. Finding that there was absolutely no basis for his claim, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition with costs of Rs.1,000/-. As against the said order, the appellant is before us.

5.

Even before us, the appellant is not able to point out any scheme floated by the Government, under which a person of his nature and stature would be entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. As we have stated earlier, he retired from the Hindustan Antibiotics Limited as a Medical Representative and he is enrolled as an Advocate. In response to our queries, the appellant concedes that he has two daughters and a son, all of whom are married and settled in life. His son is actually a Doctorate

in Bio-technology and is having his own independent business. In such circumstances, we do not know how the appellant can claim the benefits of reimbursement.

6.

There is no scheme except perhaps a scheme of the Bar Council where the appellant can make an application, if he is otherwise eligible. Therefore, leaving it open to him to go before the Bar Council, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, taking a lenient view with regard to costs, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed, deleting only the portion of costs and otherwise confirming the order of dismissal. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

_________________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ ____________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J Date: 7th August, 2018 pnb