The High Court · 2025

Order

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.2, vide Memo Rc.No.DS 1399/2018 dated: -/Ol/2021, confirming the orders passed by the Respondent No:3 vide Memo E-Ofhce No.2486081F21258612O2O, dated: 17-ll-2O2O in refusing for payment of the Medical Reimbursement bill for an amount of Rs.2,84,173/- on the ground that the treatment was taken place outside Telangana r.e., in Andhra Pradesh, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of article 21 of the Constitutron of India and consequentlJ' direct the Respondent No: 2 to 4, to process the medical bill of the Petitioner and reimburse the same and pass..."

2. Heard Sri Mandapati Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, who worked as School Assistant (Telugu) at Government Kolam Ashram High School, Utnoor, Adilabad, was retired from service on

31.12.2011. During the Covid-19 lockdown, in the month of Jttne, 2O2O, the petitioner underwent medical care and received treatment at two different hospitals. Initially, from 2 PK,J wp 9586 2O2l

17.06.2020 t<t 20.06.2020, he was treated at Dr.Ramesh Cardiac alci Multi-Speciality Hospital, Guntlu', for Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndrome, iurd Status Post Thromboiytic Therapy u,ith injections and froro 25.06.2020 to

29.06.2O2O. he u,as treated at Sentini Hospi :al, Vijayawada, for CAD, Recent Inferior Wall MI, NSR, Fair LV Systolic Function, CAG Double Vessel Disease, LCX & RCA (CTO), PICA, DtrS, and medical management of F'CA CTO. The petitioner incurred a huge expenditure for this treatment, am ounting to Rs.2 ,84 ,17 3 / - . After recovery' , the petitioner submitted his medical bills for reimbursr.ment uide ao application, dated 19.Oa.2O2O to the Hr'ad Master of Government Kolam Ashram High School, Ut.noor, Adilabad. SubsequentJr', the same were for-warded to De1:ruty Director on 2O.OB.2O2O and the office of the Tribal Welfare through the Deputy' Director had put up proceedings uide a letter, dated

23.O9.2O2O for further processing of the clztim. However, respondent No.3 uide Memo E-Office No.248608/F2 125861 2020, dated 17.11.2020, returned the medir:zrl bills of the petitioner ancl the same was affirmed by respondent No.2 uide 3 PI(,J Wp_9586_2021 Memo Rc.No.D5/399/2018, dated Nil.O1.202i. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

4. karned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sentini Hospital in Vijayawada and Dr.Ramesh Cardiac and Multi- Speciality Hospital, Guntur, recognized as referral hospitals for the purpose of treatment for State Government employees/pensioners by the Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, uide proceedings, dated 19.06.2O2O Respondent No.3 uide memo, dated 17.11.2O2O, returned the medical bills of the petitioner on the sole reason that the medical reimbursement facility shall be given only to those, who obtained medicai treatment under emergency circumstances, outside the State on official duty on1y. It is further submitted that before any medical claim is honoured, the respondents-authorities are bound to ensure whether the claimant has actually taken treatment, and once the fact of treatment is established, the claim cannot be denied on any other ground. It is a well-settled legal position that an employee, during his lifetime in service or after retirement, is entitled to the benefit of medical facilities. The way the petitioner's bills were returned by the respondents is very 4 PI(,J wp 9586 2O2l inhumane. Therefore, the action of respond,lrtt Nos.2 and 3 in returning ttre medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner is illegal an(l .rrbitrary. To support his contentions, learned counsel for rhe petitioner relied upon the jucigmenr of the Hon'ble Sulrreme Court in Shiuc Kant Jha a. Union of Indial, the order of High Court of Allahabad in Deuendra Dev Pandeg u. Stdte of U.P. and others2, the jr-.clgment of High Court of Deliri at New Delhi in Unlon of Ind.iia and another u. Shri Joginder Singhe and the order passeC by High Court of Judicaturc at Madras in R. Deucs endthipdthi v. Joint Director of Med.ical and Rural Senlice, Vellore and othersl.

5. Per c.ntra, learned Government Pl,::rder for the respondents submits that the petitioner submitted two medical rr:imbursement bills of Rs.ri.l,173/ and Rs.2,30,O00/ and both the bills pertains to trczrtment outside the State of Telangana. The Government of Tclangana issued G.O.Ms.No.7-1, Health, Medical and Famil-r' Welfare (K1) Department, dated 15.03.2005 and pa-ragraph No.17 of the 1 (2O 18) I (r SCC I 87 2 2014 11) AIJ 1 18 3 2023 : DHC : 3038-DB a W.P.No.25237 oi2Ol8 and W.M.P.No.29343 of 2019 5 PI(,J wp 9s8pr202l aforesaid G.O. states that'The medical reimbursement facilitA be giuen to those tuho obtained medical treatment under emergeftcA circumstances, Outside the State on official dutg onlA i.e., the prouision maA be giuen onlA to the persons u.tho proceeds on offtcial duty and suddenlg fell ill Lealth, as per the Central Gouernment Health Scheme Package rafes'. Hence, in compliance with the aforesaid G.O., the payment is refused as per the existing rule position as the person is a retired employee and has fallen ill not as part of official duty. It is further submitted that the State was reorganized into two States on 2"d June 2014, i.e., Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and an option was given to the employees to claim their retirement benefits in either of the States, thus, the petitioner claimed his retirement benefits from Telangana and his pension is disbursed regularly through the State of Telangana. Further, the contention of the petitioner that an emergency medical situation occurred during the national lockdown is not true as the lockdown is from 25.O3.2O2O to

31.O5.2O2O and when the petitioner fell ill, there was free flow of the traffrc with no interstate travel restrictions. The petitioner's medical bills submitted from Dr.Ramesh Cardiac i' 6 PK,J wp 9586 2O2l and Multi S peciality Hospital, Guntur, and -q entini Hospital, Vijayau,ada, erre not referral hospitals in the list approved by the Governnrent of Telangana. As per G.O.Ms.No.290, Health, Medtcal & Firrnily Welfare (A2) Department, datt:d 05.05.2015, thc Governrnent extended the medical reimbursement claim lor treatm('11t taken by the employees,/pensioners of Telangana in tl-re hospitals located in Andhra Pradesh to run in parallel u'itl'r employees health scheme up to 30.06.2015 and thereaftcr there is no extension beyond 2Ct 15. Hou,ever, the petitioner- filed his claims in the year 2O20. Hence, as per the ensuinlg rules, the petitioner's claim could not be considered.'l'herefore, learned Governmenl- Pleader prays this Court tc, dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the submir;sions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. Admittt:dly, the petitioner, who retired or 31.12.2011as School Assistant (Telugu) at Government Kolarn Ashram High School, Utnr>or, Adilabad, which falls under the State of Telangana, rs receiving pension through the State of Telangana. However, in the compelling circu.rtstances, after l;t 7 PK,J Wp 95E6_2021 the retirement, the petitioner moved to Ponnuru, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh to stay with his children. Further, in the year, 2020, during Covid- 19 pandemic, the petitioner received emergency medical care and .got' treated at two hospitals in Andhra Pradesh, which are recognized as referral hospitals for the purpose of treatment for State Government employees/pensioners and after discharging from hospital, the petitioner submitted his medical bills for reimbursement uide application, dated 19.O8.2O2O to the Head Master of Government Kolam Ashram High School, Utnoor, Adilabad and the sarne was forwarded to respondent No.2 along r,r,ith all enclosures on 20.08.202O. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has sent proceedings uide Lr.No.D5/399 /2018, dated

23.O9.2O2O, to respondent No.4 to scrutinize the bills of the petitioner and thereby, sanction the eligible medical reimbursement. However, respondent No.3 uide Memo.E- Office No.24B6O8lF2/2586/2O2O, dated 17.ll.2O2O, returned the medical bills of the petitioner referring Rule 9(17) of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 15.03.2005 and the same was conf,irmed by respondent No.2 uide Memo Rc.No.D5/ 399 / 20 18, dated Nil.O 1.202 1. E. 8 PK,J wp 9586 2021

8. Here, it is pertinent to refer to G.O. Ms.No.74, dated

15.03.2005. \rrherein Rule 9(17) states that 'The medical reimbursement facilitg be giuen to those who obtained med,ical treatmen.t under emergencA circumstance s, oulside the State on official duty onlg i.e., the prouision mag be !,iuen onlA to the persons tult o proceeds on official duty and suddenly fell iil health, as p('r th<: Central Gouernment Health Scheme package rates'. The petitioner, being a retired empl()],ee, was in an emergenc\r : nedical situation and due to the urgencl, of his health conditior-r. he u,as forced to seek trr:ittment at two priverte hosprtals in Guntur and Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

9. In Shri Jogind.er Singh's case (3 supra), the Division Bench ol Higl-r Court of Delhi, has held ds follo.vs: "...12. 'l'lre rneclical clarm for treatment undertaken in emergency should nol be rleniccl for reiml)ursernent merel]'becaur;e the hospital is not err panclled. l'he test remains whether the claimant had zrctuallr'rrndellaken the treatrnent in emergent conditton as advised and if the samc is supported by record. Preservation ol lruman life is of pararnorrnt irnportance. The State is under an obligation to ensure timcl-t mcdrcal treatrnent to a person in need of such trr:atment and a negation ()l tllc sarne uould bc a violation of Artltle 21oI the Constrtutron ol lr.tdra. Administrativc action should be . ust on test of fair Play and re:rsonablencss. Accordingly, keeping into c,lnsideration the constirutional values, thc exccutive instructionr need to be applicd tharn rr:jecting the clairn on technical ground of undertaking treatment in a non- empanelled hospital, since the CGHS/State is responsible to ensure proper medical treatment in an emergent condition zLnd furthcr cannot escape the liability, if lhe treatment unclertaker is ;1cnuine. Any denial of claim by the auth( rrties in such cases onl1 ;rdds to the rrisery of the Government servEnt by further forciDg hinr lo resort to Court of larv. 9 PK,J wp_9586 2021 Observations of the Hon"bte Apex Court in Shiva Kar.rt Jha (supra), as reflected in paras 17, 18 & 19 may also be benehcially reproduced:- '17. It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualihcation and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment Cart it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itsetf would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the grorrnd that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment Before any medicat claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duty certified by Doctors/ Llospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant o[ mcdical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court-

18. This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Government Health Scheme (CGHSI was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force ln the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the writ petitioner was admitted in the above said hospitals in emergency conditions. Moreover, the law does not require that prior permission has to be taken in such situation where the survival of the person is the prime consideration. The doctors did his operation and had implanted CRT-D device and have done so as one essential and timely. Though it is the claim of the respondent-State that the rates were exorbitant whereas the rates charged for such facility shall be only at the CGHS rates and that too after following a proper procedure given in the Circulars issued on time to time by the Ministry concerned, it also cannot be denied that the petitioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions lor survival of his life _.__l 10 PK,J Wp 9586_2021 rrhich r.erluircmcnt rvas above the sanctions and treatment in empanellccl hospilals. 19. ln (hc prcscnt view of the matter, we are of the considr:rerl opinion that the CGHS is responslUte iJ. i.ting carc ()l- healllrcarr: needs and well being of the- cJntrat goverrln)enl cmployecs and pensioners. tn tnt facts and crrcun't star)ccs of the case, $,e are of opinion that tllc treatment ol rlre rx.trtroncr in non empanellej no"piirf-.,"" I:.nr. ,1,"r" \\as no optio, lefr with him ui if,e I.,;."uii';;".r. "I"ri,,. we. th, rcior', rhn.r t the respondent_State to pay the lralarrce amoultr oI Rs..1,99,555/ - to the writ petitioner.'W-e ilso ,nake it clear th.it the said dccrsion is confined to this case,,,,lu.J---- In R. Deuasenothipo:thi's case (4 supra). the High Court

10. of Madras, h as held as follows: ,j "...5. Leirntecl r:orrrscl for the petitioner submitted th rt amount has becn dedu,-ter1 torv.lr(ls nrcdical lnsrlrance lrom the a,,o,.rtfrl-y irrao_a of the pctrrroncr and tl.rr:r-cfore, thc petitioncr i" to craim medical r, llnl)lll scnicnt. Hou,evcr, the samc issue came up ior consideratror.r i11 thc follo\ring Judgments, "t tf.r" penstonel-, \\.ho Llndct'\\.cr-rt rrcatment in a non netwo.k hospital, is also entitl€.1 "uherein il i,: fr,riO tt ft)l nrr:clir:al reimbursemcnt. ".,ritt,,a (i)... -.o,t i.rr"t (ii) Order of the Division Bench of this Court date(t O4.O2.2O19 made ia W.A.No.2749 of 2ol8 (The Governmeni'L]-famif fraau, I"p. uy its secretary, Rurai Develop-.rri Department, Fort St. George, Secretariai, Chennal_6OO OOg and "y.t others vs. K.Rajendran and others); "7. We irr-c unablr: to countenance the submission,; made on behaLl ,rt thc I,'rrs1, Second and nor.tn n".j1)o,_r,t.n t", particular 11' in vir:n of llre ruling of thc Division Berr<.I.r of this Colrrt in Star. l{ealth and Allicd Insurancc Compan,: iimrted _ vs', A.Clrokkar Il2OtOl ) LW 9Ol, rvhich has been lo owed in lndia Htalthcare Serviccs (I.pA) Limited ,s_ K. parr, ine,st.r*a.i, rcportecl tn Cl).1 2017 MllC 2213 and Director of p, nsion -vs_ B. Saraca. rcportcd in CDJ 20 17 MHC 74g8. t., ttr, ,iio.e""ia decisions, Lhe earlicr .Judgments of the Hon,ble Srfirrn. Cor.t of India and this Court on the subject have beeri ,*t*"^,.5, referred. It u.ould sufllcc here to refer to paragraphs 2,1 and,25 of the clecision in Star lJealth and Allied I";.;; Oompany Limited vs. A. Chokkar IeOtO) Z LW 9Ol, *t i.f , ..ua follorvs: "" "24. In the prcsent case, what we have to de:ide rs q,hethcr the State is bound to reimburse th; ;.h,m, ll'hethcr the insurance company is bound to indernnity the.beneticiary for the claim made by him_ e" n.i.il, in" decisions rcferrcd to above, the in"surance ."-i,"ny i" 11 PK,J wp 9586 2O2l strictly bound to strictly by the terms of contract and cannot be asked to settle a claim which does not fall within the terms of the contract and therefore the claim made by the beneficiaries in respect of treatments that were taken in a Non-Network hospital or for reimbursement of the claim made the insurance company is not liable- For this reason, the insurance company had made it clear that only if the beneficiary took treatment in a Network hospital they would settle the clairn' and more importantly the facility itself is a cashless facility. The insuralce company cannot pay cash and if we issue direction to the insurance company to reimburse the claim, we would be virtually re-writing the contract which we are not entitled to.

25. The Tamil Nadu Medical Attendance Rules ("the Rules" in short) clearly lay down the rules regarding dependents and who is entitled to medical concessions under the Rules. It also defines who is a well to do person. The Rules lay dolr,n the manner in which claims can be made. According to the learned Advocate General, these Rules are still in force and therefore when it is a claim not covered by the present Insurance Scheme, the Government Servants have the right to rnake their claims under the Rules. Therefore, as regards Category-A, where treatment has been taken in a Non-Network hospital, the insurance company cannot be asked to cover the expenses, since the scheme itself make the Network hospitals as intrinsic. However, the Petitioner/ Claimants were also not no remediless and that is why we will issue directions to the claimants to make an application under the Rules or go before the Redressal Committee."

8. The Honble Supreme Court of India in Shiva Kant Jha vs Union of India [2018 (5) MLJ 317], dealing with unfarr treatment rneted out to Government servants for medical reimbursement under similar provisions of the Central Government Health Scheme, held in paragraphs 13, 14 and l5 as follows: "13. With a view to provide the medical facility . to the retired/serving CGHS benehciaries, the Government has empanelled a large number of hospitals on CGHS panel, however, the rates charged for such facitity shall be only at the CGHS rates and, hence, the same are paid as per the procedure. Though the Respondent State has pleaded that the CGHS has to deal with large number of such retired benehciaries and if the Petitioner is compensated beyond the policy, it would have large ramification as none would follow the procedure to approach the empanelled hospitals and would rather choose private hospital as per their own free will. It cannot be ignored that such private hospitals raise exorbitant bills 12 PI(,J Wp 9586 2021 I ti. sub-lecting the patient to various tests, procedurcs and treatment \\'hich may not be necessary at all timtsr.

14. It is a settled legal position -hat the Governmellt employee during his life time or after his retirement rs entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rililLts. It is acceptable to cornmon sense, that ultimate decir;irtn as to ho$ a patient should be treated vests only \^,ith the Doclor, rvho rs rvell versed and expert both on academic quahlication and experience gained. Very little scope is left to Lhe patient or his relative to decide i:s to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Spei:ialitr'- Hospitals are established for treatrnent of spc<:ified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a disclpline are avatled by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said thar- taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would d,3prive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the gr(,und that the said Hospital is not included in the Go,,ernment Orcler. The right to medical claim cannot be denied mercly because the name of the hospital is nol. included in ttrc Govcrnrncnt Orde r. 'I'he rcal test mus t be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honourecl, the authorities are bound to ensL r,r as to rvherher the ClaimaDt had actually taken treatrnent and the factum of treatment is supported by recc,rCs duly certified by Doctors/ Hospitals concerned. Orce, it is established. the claim cannot be denied on tcchnical grolrnds. Clearly, tn the present case, by takilrg a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS ha'rc denied thc grant of medical reimbursement in full to the Petir ioner lorcing him to approach this Court.

15. This is hardly a satisfactory state rrf affairs. Thc relevant ar.rthorities are required to be more rcsponsivc arrd cannot in a mechanical manncr deprive an ernpLoyee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Govcrnment Health Scheme (CGHS) was prop,ounded $ith a purpose of providing health facility scherre to the Cenlral Government employees so that they ar3 not left without medical care after retirement. lt was in furtherance of thc ob.ject of a welfare State, which must provide for. such medical care that the sch:rne was bror.rght in forcc. ln the facts of the present case, it c.rn roI be denied that the Writ Petitioner was aCnritted in the above sard hospitals in emergency conditions. Moreover, the larv does not require that prior pr:rmission has to be taken in such situation where the s rr-vival of the person is the prime consideration. The doctorsr did his operation and had implemented CRT-D device and have done so as one esselltial and tirnely. Though it is the clairr-L of the Respondent-State that the rates were exorbltant whereas the rates charged for such facility 3r*e{d.:: :.''],''i.::..: ' '] 13 PI(,J Wp S586 202I shall be only at the CGHS ratcs and that too after following a proper procedure given in the Circulars issued on time to time by the concerned Ministry, it also cannot be denied that the Petitioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions for survival of his life which requirement was above the sanctions and treatment in empanelled hospitals."'

9. In view of this incontrovertible legat position" coupled with the facts of this case, we conhrm the findings of the Writ Court. Accordingly, we direct that the competent authority of the Government of Tamil Nadu to examine the claim made by the Petitioner for medical reimbursement under the Tamil Nadlr Medical Attendance Rules and disburse the eligible amount towards the sarne along with interest thereon at the rate oI 97o per annum from 16.03.2017 till date of payment and frle report of such compllance before the Registrar (Judiciat) of this Court by 18.02.2019."

11. From the above, it is clear that the real test must b'dr the factum of treatment and the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatrnent, before any medical claim is honoured L2. Further, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds I The petitioner has taken medical treatment outside the State of Telangana and 11 That the petitioner was not on official duty.

13. Since the petitioner is a retired government employee, the question of 'official duty' does not arise and when it comes to the medical treatment received by the petitioner, the i \ t4 PK,J wp 9586 2021 respondents shouid have taken note of the fact that under the compelling clrcumstances and in the emergen:.f situation, the petitioner had taken treatment in Andhra Pr:rrlesh. Further, the petitioner was treated at Dr. Ramesh Cardiac and Multi- Speciality llospital, Guntur, for Coronar5r A.rtery Disease, Acute Coror-rary Syndrome, and Status Por;l. Thrombolytic Therapy rvith injections from 17.06.2020 to 20.06.2020 and he was treated at Sentini Hospital, Vijayarvada, for CAD, Recent Inferior Wall MI, NSR, Fair LV Systolic Function, CAG Double Vessel Disease, LCX & RCA (CTO), f{'CA, DES, ancl medical management of RCA CTO from |25.06.2020 to

29.06.2O2O. Both Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada and Dr.Ramesh Cardiac and Multi-Speciality Hospital, Guntur, are recogn)zed as referral hospitals for the purpose of treatment for State Government employees/ pensioners by the Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, uide proceedings. dated 19.06.2O2O. Moreover, t1e petitioner 1S receiving pension from the State of Telan gana and after bifurcation of the State, the Government of lielangana uide G.O.Ms.No.290, dated 05.O5.2015, extendei[ the medical reimbursement claim for treatment tal<en by the 15 PK,J wp_9586_2021 employees/pensioners of Telangana State in the hospitals located in Andhra Pradesh to rl.n in parallel with employees health scheme up to 30.06.2015.

14. Keeping in view the above peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the respond"rrt"- t.u" passed the impugned orders without taking into consideration '. the above issues. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner. I \ t I

15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to resubmit his medical bills along with an application to the respondents within a period of ten (lO) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such an application with all the relevant documents, the respondents are directed to reconsider the szune, by appraising the above made observations and in the light of the orders in Shiuc Kant Jha,s case (1 supra), Deuendra Dea Pandeg's case (2 supra), Shrl Joginder Singh,s case (3 supra) and R. Deuas enathipathi,s case (4 supra), without reference to impugned memo Rc.No.D5/399/2O18, dated. Nil.O1.2021 passed by respondent No.2 and Memo E-Office I t6 o PK,J wp 95a6-2O21 No.248608/F212586 l2O2O, dated t7.tt.2A2O passed by respondent No.3, and pass appropriate ordersr, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, pref,:rably r,,,ithin a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ary, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REflSTRAR V SECTION OFFICER I To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Trrbal Welfare Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana. H yderabad. 2 The Deputy Drrector, Office of the Deputy Director (Tribal Welfare), |TDA, Utnoor, Adilabad, Telangana. 3 Jl]e Depqty Drrector (Plg and Montg) Welfare. D.S. Samkshema Bhavan,l/ 4. The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, D.S Hyderabad Office of the Conrmissioner of Tribal asab Tank, Hyde'abad. Samkshema Bhavan, IVlasab Tank.

5. One CC to SRI IVANDAPATT MURALT KR|SHNA, Advor;ate. tOpUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ltl High Court for the ijtate of Telangana 7 Two CD Copies BSK BS HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210212025 ORDER WP.No.9586 ot 2021 ( i I 12 APR 2m (t D a t alA'sryrt cHf.O * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a6 t4