# Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1037
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-01-23
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 1495 of 2010
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kant, Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41720
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3 All] Krishna Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1037

8. The Special Appeal is allowed.
The judgment of learned Single Judge
dated 23.1.2008 in Writ Petition No. 1317
of 2007 is set aside. The respondents are
directed
to
reconsider
petitioners'
application in the light of judgments as
above very expeditiously, and in any case
within a period of two months from the
date the petitioners furnish a certified
copy of the judgment alongwith the
relevant records in the office of the
Director of Basic Education, UP.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.10.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Writ Petition No. 1495 of 2010

Krishna Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Constitution of India, Art 226-Medical
reimbursement-petitioner
working
as
A.D.J. Retired from Distt. 'A'-put claim at
Distt 'B' where presently residing-deniel
by Distt. Judge at place 'B'-held-not
proper general direction issued to all the
Head of Depott. to process such claim as
per choice made by the retired person or
his family member-if not worked in that
particular Distt.-summon entire service
record from the place of last workingpromptly clear the same.

Held: Para 9

To give full meaning and effect to the
benefit of medical reimbursement to a
retired government servant and other
persons
eligible
under
the
rules/government orders, we make it
clear and provide that such a medical
claim can be placed/put forward before
the Head of the concerned office where
the person concerned is residing and
intents to submit his claim, or also at a
place
from
where
the
government
servant has retired. This would be the
choice of the person concerned. In case
a government servant is retired from a
different place and he lodges his claim at
the place where he is residing, it will be
the duty and responsibility of the said
office/Head of Department to ask for
necessary records and information, if any
required from the place from where the
government servant has retired and the
office aforesaid would be under an
obligation
to
provide
all
necessary
details and documents to the office,
where
the
government
servant
has
applied for reimbursement. Care has to
be taken that in such a case unusual
delay may not occur, so that the purpose
of the government order does not stand
defeated.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.)

1. Notice on behalf of respondent
nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 has been accepted by the
learned Chief Standing Counsel and on
behalf of respondent no.4, by Sri Manish
Kumar.

2. With the consent of the parties'
counsel, the petition is being disposed of
finally at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had retired
from the post of Additional District
Judge, District Balia in November, 1996.
The petitioner has claimed reimbursement
with respect to his medical claim of the
year 2005. The petitioner went to place
his papers in the office of the District
Judge, Bahraich, where he is residing
after retirement, but the District Judge has
refused the same, saying that such a claim
can be reimbursed only from the place,
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
from where the petitioner has retired, i.e.
District Balia.

Relevant Para-3 of the Government
Order is quoted below:

"3. Sewanivrit sarkari sewak evam
unke pariwar ke aashrit sadasya tatha
mrit sarkari sewak ke pariwar pension
hetu ahar sadasya ki chikitsa vyaya
pratipurti
se
dave
sambadhit
karyalayadhayksha ko athva us karyalaya
mein prastut kiye jayange, jahan se wah
sewanivrit hue ho."

4. Para-3 of the Government Order
aforesaid
says
that
the
retired
government servant and his dependents,
family members and also family pension
holders of deceased government servant
can place their claim for medical
reimbursement before the Head of
Department of the concerned office or in
the office from where the government
servant has retired.

5. The aforesaid directives have
been
reiterated
in
the
subsequent
Government Order dated 9.8.2004 also.

6. The meaningful interpretation
apart from the literal meaning of the
aforesaid para would mean that a retired
government servant can lay his claim for
medical reimbursement at the place
where he is residing, if there is any office
of the Head of Department over there.
He can also make such claim in the
office from where he has retired. But this
cannot be taken to understand that the
claim of government servants or their
dependents
etc.
for
medical
reimbursement can only be lodged at the
place from where the government servant
has retired.

7. A government servant after
retirement settles himself at a place of
his choice, which may not be the same
place from where he has retired from
service.
The
facility/privilege
of
reimbursement of the medical expenses
that he incurred even after retirement
would stand denied in many cases, if the
government servants are required to lay
all their medical claim from the place
from where they retire.

8. Medical reimbursement has to be
done immediately and promptly, so that
the purpose of the same may not stand
frustrated.

9. To give full meaning and effect
to the benefit of medical reimbursement
to a retired government servant and other
persons
eligible
under
the
rules/government orders, we make it
clear and provide that such a medical
claim can be placed/put forward before
the Head of the concerned office where
the person concerned is residing and
intents to submit his claim, or also at a
place from where the government servant
has retired. This would be the choice of
the
person
concerned.
In
case
a
government servant is retired from a
different place and he lodges his claim at
the place where he is residing, it will be
the duty and responsibility of the said
office/Head of Department to ask for
necessary records and information, if any
required from the place from where the
government servant has retired and the
office aforesaid would be under an
obligation to provide all necessary
details and documents to the office,
where the government servant has
applied for reimbursement. Care has to
be taken that in such a case unusual
delay may not occur, so that the purpose
3 All] Jagdamba Prasad Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1039
of the government order does not stand
defeated.

10. For the reasons stated above,
we give liberty to the petitioner to lay his
claim alongwith a certified copy of this
order before the District Judge, Bahraich,
who would consider the same and act
accordingly.

11. With the aforesaid clarification,
the writ petition is disposed of finally,
accordingly.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. PANDEY, J.

Special Appeal No. 1606 of 2008

Jagdamba Prasad Singh
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.K. Mishra
Sri S.K. Mishra
Sri Sanjeev Singh
Sri Vinay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.K. Tiwari
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Dismissal
from service-without holding inquiry-on
allegation
of
wrong
calculation
of
interest on award of compensationpetitioner of appellant being lowest
employee if committed any error-could
not be tressed by Ahalmad and SLOsubsequent withdrawal of large amount
due to fraud of another employees of
land acquisition Depott-appellant can
not be punished with dismissal-neither
disciplinary
authority,
nor
appellant
authority nor Hon'ble Single Judge tried
to find out the correct fact dismissal seta-side with all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 27

The anxiety of the Court to decide the
cases quickly sometimes leads to gross
injustice to the persons, who approach
the Court giving all the required facts. In
the present case, the District Magistrate,
the Commissioner and thereafter learned
Single Judge did not care to look into the
facts of the case, in which no charge of
embezzlement
was
alleged
or
established. The petitioner serving as
Amin at the lowest level was found to
have made incorrect calculation, which
could have been made by any body by
way of a bonafide mistake and could be
corrected by the officer making payment.
He was punished in the matter of a
greater fraud played on the record
subsequently by Shri Ram Dawar, the
employees in the office of Special Land
Acquisition Officer, and in which he was
not involved.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. We have heard Shri S.K. Mishra
appearing for the petitioner-appellant. Shri
J.K. Tiwari, Standing Counsel appears for
the State respondents.

2.

The
petitioner-appellant-a
confirmed Amin holding a regular post was
dismissed from service three years before
he was to retire on the charges, that he had
wrongly calculated interest of Rs.37,823.71
payable
towards
compensation
for
acquisition of land under the Land
Acquisition Act to its owner. His appeal
was dismissed after this Court issued a writ
of mandamus to decide the matter. By this
Special Appeal he has challenged the order
of learned Single Judge dated 30.9.2008,
and the orders of his dismissal dated