news details |
|
|
| Retired Dy. Dir Prosecution seeks reimbursement of medical expenses | | HC directs respondents to reconsider the case within a period of four weeks | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 10- Setting aside the communication of June 6, 2005, Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today directed the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders under rules within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
This direction was given in a petition filed by S. Inder Singh, who retired as Deputy
Director Prosecution in 1995, seeking reimbursement of expenses to the tune of
Rs.1, 57,767 along with interest @ 12 per cent per annum for undergoing bye pass
Surgery in Delhi Hospital, as provided under the J&K Retired Policemen Welfare Fund
Rules.
Justice Hussain, after hearing Adv Sindhu Sharma appearing for the petitioner and Additional Advocate General VK Chopra appearing for the police department, observed that Court find due force in the submissions of Adv Sindhu Sharma appearing for the petitioner that the stand taken by the respondents in the objections is not correct as the stand is the same as has already been taken by the respondents in the earlier petition which has been duly considered by the Court. Upon this Court further observed that while addressing the communication of June 6, 2005, the respondents have not taken note of the communication dated July 12, 2005 issued by the Administrative Officer GMC Jammu to the Deputy Director Health Services, Jammu from which it would appear that the petitioner has undergone bye-pass surgery in emergency. If it is so, there was no need to produce referral letter as required under the communication. This fact has not been considered by the respondents at all. It appears that communication impugned has been addressed by the respondents mechanically without due application of mind. From this, the Court finds that the matter needs re-consideration by the respondents on these lines, therefore, the petitioner need not to respond to the communication of June 6, 2005 which is set aside and respondents are directed to re-examine the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order under rules, within a period of four weeks from the date this orders is served on the respondents. With these observations, Court allowed the petition of retired Deputy Director Prosecution. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
