MANIK DASGUPTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2.

(2.) From the order dated 16.09.2020, it appears that this court had observed that the reply seemed to have been given from the Registry of Lokayukta, Tripura, as for some time, the petitioner was posted there. But no notice was issued on the respondent No.3, considering that the respondent No.3 might be a proper party, but not a necessary party.

(3.) Now, the grievance of the petitioner falls within a short compass. Even though, the petitioner is borne in the medical reimbursement establishment for his being a gazetted officer and he is entitled to receive medical attendance free of charge by reimbursement, wherever it is charged, on production of the certificate in writing by the authorized medical attendant of the actual expenses. It may be noted that proviso below Rule-3(2) CS (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 provides that the Controlling Officer shall reject any claim if he is not satisfied with its genuineness or facts or circumstances of each case, after giving an opportunity to the claimant of being heard in the matter, while doing so. The Controlling Officer shall communicate to him the reasons, in brief, rejecting the claim; and the claimant may submit an appeal to the Central Government [here it would be State Government] within a period of forty-five days of the date of receipt of the said order rejecting the claim.