MOHD YOUNIS Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petiton is the communication/decision bearing No.DHC/J/MRC/4498 dated 05.09.2014 issued by respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement on the ground that it does not fall under the purview of Rule 6(5) of Medical Attendance Cum-Allowance Rules 1990.

(2.) Brief facts, leading to filing of this petiton, are that the petitioner was serving as Teacher in Education Department and superannuated on 31.12007. In the year 2003, the petitioner after applying for leave through proper channel w.e.f 08.08.2003 to 25.11.2003 with permission to leave the Station had gone to Mumbai for attending the family function of his younger brother who was permanently settled in Mumbai. It is submitted that during the aforesaid period, the petitioner fell ill and admitted in Tata Memorial Centre (Mumbai) where he was diagnosed a case of Multiple Myeloma, a type of cancer. The petitioner remained admitted there for about two months and has been under continuous checkup and treatment from the said Hospital till date. It is claimed that during the aforesaid period, the petitioner was subjected to various tests/medical examination and had incurred Rs.33,275/- towards the medical and other expenses at the aforesaid Hospital and the said amount was released in his favour by the respondents. It is further claimed that during the year 2004-06, the petitioner has incurred Rs.58,468 towards medical expenses and Microbio test.

(3.) Grievance of the petitioner is that his claim for medical reimbursement having been considered at various level was finally forwarded to respondent No.3 seeking recommendation/opinion in terms of Rule 6(5) of the Medical Attendance Cum Allowance Rules, 1990 (for short 'Rules of 1990'), who, vide communication dated 05.09.2014 impugned herein rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his case is not covered under Rule 6(5) of the Rules of 1990 .