# Smt. Maimuna Begum v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-17
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 122 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-maimuna-begum-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54560
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - Uttar
Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
1978 - Rule 10 & 10(1) - Intra court Appeal
- a sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher
(English) fell vacant at Junior High School - The
Committee of Management sought permission -

## Text

3 All. Smt. Maimuna Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285
52. The judgement rendered by this
Court in Neeraj Chaturvedi Vs. Central
Bank of India and others reported at
2022 (4) AWC 3722 and relied upon by the
petitioner will now be referenced. Neeraj
Chaturvedi (supra) is distinguishable and
is not applicable to the facts of this case. In
Neeraj Chaturvedi (supra) the wife of the
petitioner
was
suffering
from
100%
disability. In Neeraj Chaturvedi (supra)
the person with disability was neither
working nor drawing an independent
salary.

53. No infirmity in the impugned
order could be established. The impugned
transfer order is not liable to be interfered
with.

54. In wake of the preceding
discussion the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

55. Considering the mandate of the
Disabilities Act, 2016 it would be pertinent to
part with these observations. The critical
place of care givers for realizing the rights of
persons with disabilities, and also the
obligations casts on employers have been
discussed at length in the judgement. In case
care givers are transferred the concerned
employers should explore the feasibility of
facilitating alternate care givers for the
persons with disability or smooth shifting of
the latter to the new place of posting.

56. Copy of this order be placed
before the respective employers namely
Principal
Secretary,
Basic
Education,
Government of UP and Managing Director,
Central Bank of India for considering
development of a policy in regard to care
givers in the above light. In case such
policy is evolved the petitioner and his wife
will be entitled to its benefits.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 285
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 122 of 2025

Smt. Maimuna Begum ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kalendra Prasad, Dharmendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of
medical bills has been returned -on the
ground that it was not be submitted within
90 days period prescribed under the Rulesif an employee has died during treatment-
his wife/heirs should not be harassed for
technical reasons-such a rule may at times
be put to strict compliance where employee
is alive-but where employee has died during
treatment-
such
rules
should
not
be
permitted
to
come
in
the
way
of
reimbursement of genuine claims of medical
bills-the provision is liable to be held
directory in nature.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

2. The petitioner by means of the
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India has prayed for
reconsideration of the reimbursement of
medical bills that have been earlier
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
forwarded to the Committee, but the same
was returned only on the ground of delayed
submission.

3. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
being a widow, the authority ought to have
taken a pragmatic view of the matter
inasmuch as husband of the petitioner
having died during treatment, the widow
was badly shocked and could recover after
sometime only.

4. From the perusal of the letter
dated 17.12.2024, I find that the petitioner's
claim for reimbursement has been returned
only on the ground that it was not be
submitted within 90 days period prescribed
under the Rules.

5. In my considered view, if an
employee has died during treatment, his
wife/heirs should not be harassed for
technical
reasons.
Such
a
rule
that
prescribes for submitting medical bills for
reimbursement may at times be put to strict
compliance where employee is alive but in
case of heirs where employee has died
during treatment, such rules should not be
permitted
to
come
in
the
way
of
reimbursement of genuine claims of
medical bills. The provision is liable to be
held directory in nature.

6. I may further observe that where
an employee and his heirs are entitled to
certain incidental benefits of service, delay
can not be permitted to operate as bar by
applying law of limitation. No provision is
placed before this Court that claims for
reimbursement after 90 days shall be liable
to be rejected compulsorily. Thus reason
given by the authorities in returning the
medical bills, therefore as such, cannot be
countenanced.
7. In view of what has been
observed and held above, this Court hereby
directs petitioner to submit again the
medical
bills
before
the
Executive
Engineer,
Public
Works
Department,
Raebareilly within a period of four weeks,
and in the event medical bills are submitted
as directed hereinabove, the concerned
respondent, this time, shall clear the same
as per relevant rules by taking appropriate
decision within a period of two weeks from
the date of presentation of medical
reimbursement bills.

8. This petition stands disposed of
as above.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 286
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 703 of 2024

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Mahendra Paliwal & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.C., Tej Bhanu Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Kunal Shah, Prabhakar Awasthi, Shailendra
Kumar Gupta

Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - Uttar
Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
1978 - Rule 10 & 10(1) - Intra court Appeal
- a sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher
(English) fell vacant at Junior High School - The
Committee of Management sought permission -