Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nisha Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 24 th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11788 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. NISHA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI SURENDRA
PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM BHATKHEDI TESHIL MANASA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HARISH JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (O AND M0
M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.
LTD. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE EXICUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M) M.P.
PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
MANASA, DISTT. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. GEETANJALI CHAURASIA, P.L./G.A. FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE AND SHRI ABHISHEK BAJPAI, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 24-07-2023 18:38:46 2"A. That, the respondents may be directed to reimburse all 'the bills incurred by the husband of the petitioner of Rs. 2,70,230/- along with the interest @ 12.5% pa. from the date of entitlement to till date, the amount is actually paid to the petitioner.
B. To award the cost of present petition, from the respondents to the petitioner. C. To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent."
The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband late Shri Surendra Purohit, who was posted as Class - III employee in the respondents department, died of ailment regarding which she has also incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs.2,70,230/- and when the claim was made from the respondents M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd, the same was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted the original bills of treatment, however, the petitioner was also advised that she can also get the bills and other documents verified from the concerned Hospital.
Counsel has submitted that subsequently the petitioner has got the documents and has also filed the same along with I.A. No.7383 of 2022. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1542 of 2016 dated 01.05.2018 wherein this Court has allowed the claim of the employee of the respondents observing that the treatment taken by the employee in a private Hospital is also reimbursive.
Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that although the reply has already been filed, but since the petitioner has subsequently filed the certified bills, his claim can be decided afresh, in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court finds it expedient to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's case afresh after taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1542 of 2016 . It is also directed that if the petitioner's claim is allowed, the amount may be Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 24-07-2023 18:38:46 3 remitted to her as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 24-07-2023 18:38:46