VINITA MARTIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed on the post of ANM after due selection vide order, dated 15 May, 1987. She joined her duties on 2 June, 1987. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a medical fitness certificate had been submitted by her at the time of joining her duties. Petitioner has been denied salary for the period from 2 June, 1987 till 31 August, 1987 only on the ground that the medical fitness certificate submitted by the petitioner is not available on record. There cannot be any dispute that without medical fitness certificate a person cannot be allowed to join, the duties after appointment. Be that as it may, if the medical fitness certificate was not available on record then how the petitioner was paid salary from 1 September, 1987. That apart, the petitioner has not been reimbursed her medical bills submitted in the year 1989 on the ground that medical bills had not been submitted within time.

(2.) SRI Agrawal, Additional Government Advocate, could not show any rules where the medical bills have to be rejected only on the ground of limitation. It has not been alleged that the bills are false or forged and, subsequently, if so happens, the payment made can always be recovered from the employee concerned.

(3.) THE reply filed on behalf of the respondents, on the face of it, appears to be wholly vague and evasive. The stand taken by the respondents in denying the legal dues of the petitioner appears to be wholly unjustified and unreasonable more so, when the petitioner had been working for last 5 more than -20 years on the post lowest in the cadre.