Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C.Karunanidhi vs The Govt Of Ap Dept Of Agril Coop 3 Others on 11 March, 2026
APHC010783862013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 13922/2013
Between:
1. C.KARUNANIDHI,, D.NO.12A, BLOCK NO.2, UMA APARTMENTS,
BALAJI COLONY, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE GOVT OF AP DEPT OF AGRIL COOP 3 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRIL & COOP.
(AGRIL. III), SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
2. THE GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MEDICAL, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
3. ACHARYA N G RANGA AGICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REP., BY ITS
REGISTRAR, RAJENDRANAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
4. THE S V AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, REP., BY ITS ASSOCIATE
DEAN, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not considering the claim of petitioner is illegal void and violative to the principles of natural justice and direct the respondents to sanction the claim of the petitioner and 2 pass such other order or orders. may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 17021 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11-04-2011 in light of GOMs. No 74, GOMs No. 203 and the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office vide is proceedings No. 49/ Sp1CS-CM(Peshi)2011 dated 25.03.2011 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 4 OF 2013(WPMP 88812 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 15498 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased expedite the main hearing of the WP No. 13922 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BHASKAR GANDHAM (SC FOR A N G A U A.P )
2. P GOVIND REDDY(SC FOR ANGRAU)
3. GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following:3
Order:-
The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in releasing the medical bills incurred by the petitioner for his treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as an Agricultural Extension Officer with the 4th respondent and had suffered from Nephrotic Syndrome, for which he had been undergoing treatment regularly. On account of a medical emergency, the petitioner was advised to undergo treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai, and accordingly the petitioner underwent treatment from 18.03.2011 to 08.04.2011 by incurring an expenditure of Rs.1,19,149/-. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 11.04.2011 seeking reimbursement of the medical expenditure.
It is submitted that the respondents, by referring to the letter dated 25.03.2011 issued from the Chief Minister's Office under the signature of the Special Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner underwent treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai, which is not a recognized hospital.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter issued from the Office of the Chief Minister would categorically indicate that the bills submitted beyond 30.04.2011 were not to be entertained.
4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter, and it is admitted therein that the Director of Medical Education had categorically stated that the claim may be 4 allowed by obtaining relaxation from the Government, since the treatment was obtained at an unrecognized private hospital outside the State and the same was not renewed by the State Government. It is also stated in the counter that proposals were sent to the 1st respondent seeking permission to sanction the medical reimbursement amount by duly relaxing the reimbursement rules.
5. The 1st respondent rejected the said proposal vide letter dated 13.02.2012 by referring to the letter of the Special Chief Secretary in the Office of the Chief Minister dated 25.03.2011.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
7. The short point for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in denying payment of the medical bills to the petitioner by referring to the letter of the Special Chief Secretary dated 25.03.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner underwent treatment from 18.03.2011 to 08.04.2011 at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner claimed a total amount of Rs.1,19,149/- and that the Director of Medical Education had also approved the final payment payable as Rs.1,00,000/- by deducting the inadmissible amount, citing the ceiling in terms of G.Os. and CGHS/NIMS/SVIMS packages dated 09.08.2011. The only ground on which the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner is by referring to the letter 5 dated 25.03.2011 addressed by the Special Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister.
8. A perusal of the said letter would indicate that the Special Chief Secretary had proposed that relaxation of rules on medical claims on various grounds such as treatment outside the State, treatment in unrecognized private hospitals, belated claims, and claims over and above the package amount would not be entertained in future beyond 30.04.2011.
9. On the facts of the present case, the petitioner underwent treatment from 18.03.2011 to 08.04.2011 and submitted an application for reimbursement on 11.04.2011. If that be the case, there could be no occasion for the respondents to refer to the correspondence of the Special Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 25.03.2011. These suggestions were to be considered from 30.04.2011. The treatment of the petitioner and submission of the bill were much before the cut-off date mentioned in the said proceedings.
10. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the bill of the petitioner seeking reimbursement from the respondents ought not to have been stalled by referring to an inapplicable proceeding issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister's Office. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the medical reimbursement amount to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 11.03.2026 PNS