Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Jyoti Anantrao Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 1 August, 2022

Author: Sandeep V. Marne

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne

                                                                   41 WP 598 21.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            41 WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2021

                       JYOTI ANANTRAO KADAM
                                  VERSUS
              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...
              Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mundhe Ashok A.
         AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mrs. M.A. Deshpande
 Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. A.S. Jagtap h/f Mr. N.S. Kadam

                              CORAM           : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
                              DATE            : 01.08.2022.


PER COURT :

         We have heard both the sides.

2. The petitioner's husband who is in the employment as an Extension Officer (Education) in the Panchayat Samiti, Loha met with an accident and sustained injury and was treated at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner put up a claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses. Only 50% of the expenses were reimbursed by taking a sympathetic view.

3. It appears that the petitioner's husband was treated at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad which was duly notified by the State Government as one of the hospitals, the treatment wherein was admissible for reimbursement. Even there was a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon Nanded certifying that the ailment with which the petitioner's husband was suffering from, was duly covered by the government resolution dated 19.03.2005.

4. In the light of the above, it prima facie appears that the claim for reimbursement was duly covered by the government resolution regarding 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2022 14:43:26 ::: 41 WP 598 21.odt reimbursement. However, the government has taken a decision on 20.09.2018 to reimburse only 50% of the total expenses of Rs. 16,43,904/-.

5. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B', which reads as under :

"(B) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No. 1 i.e. the Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Jalsandharan Department, Maharashtra State, to decide the petitioners representation dated 29.07.2020 considering the G.R. dated 17 th August 2006 by this G.R. Apollo Hospital Hyderabad is State Government recognized hospital and also G.R. dated 19 th March 2005, G.R. dated 16th Nov 2011 and G.R. dated 29th May 2006".

6. The respondents shall take appropriate decision as early as possible.

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of. The authorities shall take the decision on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made herein above.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/-

2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2022 14:43:26 :::