V.VEERA RAGHAVAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.33453 of 2024, Mr. V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.35029, 35037, 35065 and 36844 of 2024, Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services - II appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 in Writ Petition Nos.33453, 35029, 35037, 35065 and 36844 of 2024, Mr. G.Bheemachary, learned counsel, representing Mr. K.Manoj Reddy Keshi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.33453 of 2024, Mr. S.Suman, learned Government Pleader for Pay and Accounts (Services - III) appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 in Writ Petition Nos.33453, 35029, 35037, 35065 and 36844 of 2024, and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for IA& AD appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.36844 of 2024.

(2.) These are batch of writ petitions filed on behalf of the retired Judicial Officers from the State of Telangana. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the alleged orders issued by the respondents for recovering certain amount spent by the petitioners on medical expenses. Since the issue is common in all these writ petitions, we do not intend to go into details of the respective expenses which have been disallowed by the respondents and for which recovery proceedings were initiated. We proceed to decide the general principle so far as the medical reimbursement part of a Judicial Officer in the State of Telangana is concerned.

(3.) The stand of the Government was relying upon the G.O.Ms.No.97 HM &FW (A1) dtd. 7/6/2017, and G.O.Ms.No.4 dtd. 28/2/2024, which prescribes for certain limits so far as the medical reimbursement for State Government employees is concerned. Other than this, the Government does not have any other stand on the basis of which the recovery proceedings were initiated.