Judgment · High Court · 2005
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above facts, this writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with the observation that it is left open to the respondents No. 1 & 5 to settle their dispute in respect of their inter se…
Judgment
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder, present for the State-respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon(cid:146)ble V.K. Bist, J. (Oral-Hon(cid:146)ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay sanctioned amount of Rs.89,655/- towards the medical reimbursement. A further 2 Mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to pay remaining Rs.70,150/- also towards medical reimbursement.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Medical Officer (Ayurvedic), who had underwent Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner incurred an expenditure amounting Rs.1,50,805/-. He has further stated that the bills were submitted for reimbursement to the Government, but the same remain unpaid, hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 in 2004 it is admitted that Rs.89,655/- was sanctioned towards the bills submitted by the petitioner for reimbursement.
This Court vide its interim order dated 21.07.2005 and 10.11.2005 directed the respondents to pay the sanctioned amount of Rs.89,655/- regarding which there is already sanction from the Government to be paid to the petitioner. Now, during the pendency of this writ petition a compliance report has been given on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 by filing affidavit of Dr. Ram Teerth Pandey, stating that not only Rs.89,655/- has been paid to the petitioner vide order No.1986/XXVIII (1) 2005-06-writ-36/2003, dated 30th November 2005, but also remaining Rs.60,000/- which were found payable against the bills submitted by the petitioner, has been paid vide order No.11653- 55/budget 2005-06/lekha-I, dated 2nd December 2005. 3
Operative part
In view of the above facts, this writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with the observation that it is left open to the respondents No. 1 & 5 to settle their dispute in respect of their inter se liability in the light of sub- section (4) of Section 42 of U.P. Reorganization Act,
2000. NS (V.K. Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
14.09.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 — s. 42.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 30 Nov 2005. The bench was PRAFULLA C PANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.