# U.P. Jal Nigam Rural & Anr v. Tarun Kumar Sharma & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 37
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 280 of 2025
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-jal-nigam-rural-anr-v-tarun-kumar-sharma-anr-54622
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Ajay Kishor Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Overriding effect of the Office Memorandum
dated 06.06.2013, whereby the benefit of
medical reimbursement was taken away, to the
mandate of Rules and Regulation, which protect
the allowance admissible to the members of
service.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Medical reimbursement
-
Entitlement
-
Pensioner's
wife
underwent medical treatment in the year
2015 - Claim for medical reimbursement
was rejected on the ground that the Office
Memorandum
dated
06.06.2013
took
away
the
benefit
of
medical
reimbursement - Whereas the Rules of
2011, applicable to the employees of the
Jal Nigam, provide for claim of the Medical
Reimbursement - Validity of rejection
challenged :
Held : Office memorandum dated 06.06.2013,
as it appears, is nothing but a resolution of the
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Board in its 160th meeting, whereby the benefit
of medical reimbursement is said to have been
taken away - By a simple resolution passed by
the Board without prior approval of the State
Government, no provision of Regulations, 1978
can be superseded or made redundant by U.P.
Jal Nigam. Thus, the mere existence of the
office memorandum dated 06.06.2013 cannot
supersede the mandate of the regulations and
the protection available to the respondentspetitioners under law remains intact - The
Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2013 would
not bar and cannot be construed against the
mandate
of
Rule
11
of
the
Medical
Reimbursement Rules 2011 as were applicable
to the case at hand. The office memorandum
dated 06.06.2013 was wrongly applied to reject
the claim of the petitioners, being non est.
[Paras 11, 18 and 19] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Writ A No. 2000284 of 2014; Mohammad Aslam
& Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on
13.02.2023 - referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 -
Ss. 37 and 97; U.P. Jal Nigam Service of
Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations,
1978 - Reg. 31; Medical Reimbursement Rules,
2011 - Rule 11.
List of Keywords
Medical Reimbursement; Latches in filing writ
petition;
Impediment;
Office
Memorandum
dated
06.06.2013;
Allowance;
Previous
approval.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 18.04.2025 passed
by Single Judge in Writ A No. 4204 of 2025
arising out of an order dated 10.11.2015
rejecting
the
claim
of
the
respondentspetitioners of medical reimbursement.

## Text

7 All. U.P. Jal Nigam Rural & Anr. Vs. Tarun Kumar Sharma & Anr.
37
the alleged illegal dispossession of
the applicant make in the year 2002.

15. In Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v.
State of U.P.: (1985) 1 SCC 427, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that parallel proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should not be
permitted to continue when possession is
being examined by the civil court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that
multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of
the parties nor should public time be allowed
to be wasted over meaningless litigation.

16. In Ashok Kumar v. State of
Uttarakhand: (2013) 3 SCC 366, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
object of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is merely
to maintain law and order and to prevent
breach of peace by maintaining one or
other of the parties in possession, and
not for evicting any person from
possession.

17. In Sri Siddeshwar Temple
Trust Committee v. Sri Malingaraya
Temple Charitable Trust: (2020) 18 SCC
417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that once a civil suit is pending between the
parties and an injunction has been granted
therein, a parallel proceeding under Sections
145 and 146 Cr.P.C. cannot, in law, take
place.

18. In the present case, the
Magistrate has come to the conclusion
that there was no breach of peace, the
matter related to title dispute which is
pending adjudication before the Civil
Court and the question of title can be
decided by the Competent Court and has
closed the proceedings for the aforesaid
reasons. This Court finds no error or
illegality in the view taken by the
learned Magistrate.
19. The application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 37
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 280 of 2025

U.P. Jal Nigam Rural & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Tarun Kumar Sharma & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Aditya Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ajay Kishor Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Overriding effect of the Office Memorandum
dated 06.06.2013, whereby the benefit of
medical reimbursement was taken away, to the
mandate of Rules and Regulation, which protect
the allowance admissible to the members of
service.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Medical reimbursement
-
Entitlement
-
Pensioner's
wife
underwent medical treatment in the year
2015 - Claim for medical reimbursement
was rejected on the ground that the Office
Memorandum
dated
06.06.2013
took
away
the
benefit
of
medical
reimbursement - Whereas the Rules of
2011, applicable to the employees of the
Jal Nigam, provide for claim of the Medical
Reimbursement - Validity of rejection
challenged :
Held : Office memorandum dated 06.06.2013,
as it appears, is nothing but a resolution of the
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Board in its 160th meeting, whereby the benefit
of medical reimbursement is said to have been
taken away - By a simple resolution passed by
the Board without prior approval of the State
Government, no provision of Regulations, 1978
can be superseded or made redundant by U.P.
Jal Nigam. Thus, the mere existence of the
office memorandum dated 06.06.2013 cannot
supersede the mandate of the regulations and
the protection available to the respondentspetitioners under law remains intact - The
Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2013 would
not bar and cannot be construed against the
mandate
of
Rule
11
of
the
Medical
Reimbursement Rules 2011 as were applicable
to the case at hand. The office memorandum
dated 06.06.2013 was wrongly applied to reject
the claim of the petitioners, being non est.
[Paras 11, 18 and 19] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Writ A No. 2000284 of 2014; Mohammad Aslam
& Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on
13.02.2023 - referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 -
Ss. 37 and 97; U.P. Jal Nigam Service of
Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations,
1978 - Reg. 31; Medical Reimbursement Rules,
2011 - Rule 11.
List of Keywords
Medical Reimbursement; Latches in filing writ
petition;
Impediment;
Office
Memorandum
dated
06.06.2013;
Allowance;
Previous
approval.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 18.04.2025 passed
by Single Judge in Writ A No. 4204 of 2025
arising out of an order dated 10.11.2015
rejecting
the
claim
of
the
respondentspetitioners of medical reimbursement.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Aditya Mohan, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri Ajay
Kishor Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This intra-court appeal filed
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 has assailed the
judgment/order dated 18.04.2025 passed
in Writ-A No. 4204 of 2025 filed by the
respondents-petitioners,
whereby,
the
medical reimbursement claim for a sum of
Rs.7,09,032/- admissible to them was
disposed off in light of the judgment passed
in
Writ-A
No.
2000284
of
2014
(Mohammad Aslam & Ors. Vs State of
U.P. and Ors).

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the respondents-petitioners prior to filing of
the present writ petition had filed a Writ-A
No. 3641 of 2025 which was disposed of in
terms of the following order dated
10.04.2025:-

"1.
Heard
Sri
Ajay
Kishor
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Madhav Om, holding brief of Sri
Samir Om, learned counsel for the opposite
parties.

2. At the very outset, Sri Om has
informed that decision has been taken by
the competent authority in the issue of the
petitioners on 10.11.2015, however, copy
thereof has not been addressed to the
petitioners.

3. Copy of the aforesaid order
has been provided to Sri Ajay Kishor
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri Pandey has stated, on the basis of
instructions, that copy of the aforesaid
order has not been provided to the
petitioners but that order will have to be
challenged before this Court, therefore, he
has requested that this writ petition may be
7 All. U.P. Jal Nigam Rural & Anr. Vs. Tarun Kumar Sharma & Anr.
39
dismissed being not pressed with liberty to
the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition
challenging the aforesaid order making
other prayers.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition
is dismissed being not pressed with the
aforesaid liberty."

4. On the liberty having been granted
in terms of the aforementioned order, the
second writ petition assailing the order
dated 10.11.2015 came to be filed before
this Court with the prayer as under:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned claim rejection
order
dated
21.11.2015
annexed
as
Annexure no.2 with the memo of writ
petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties
to
reimburse the medical expenses bills and
also pay interest on the delayed payment at
the rate of 10% p.a. to the petitioner within
stipulated time frame.

(iii) Award costs in favour of the
petitioner and against the opposite parties
and to pass such further or any such orders
as may be considered just and proper in the
interest of justice and in the circumstances
of the case."

5. The Writ Court having regard to
the rules and regulations applicable on the
subject of medical reimbursement, has
proceeded to dispose of the writ petition in
the
light
of
the
judgement
dated
13.02.2023,
wherein,
the
statutory
provisions applicable to the claims of
medical reimbursement have been referred
to and considered. This Court at the cost of
repetition would also visit the legal position
as under.
6.
The
respondents-petitioners'
father late Shiv Kumar Sharma was a
Member of Engineering Service in Jal
Nigam, Lucknow who, on attaining the age
of superannuation, retired from service in
1993 while holding the post of Divisional
Engineer. There is no dispute with respect
to the retiral dues admissible to the father
of the respondents-petitioners.

7. It appears from the record that in
the
year
2015,
the
mother
of
the
respondents-petitioners
fell
ill
as
a
consequence whereof, she was rushed to
the hospital where, she underwent medical
treatment. The mother of the respondentspetitioners was admitted to St. Joseph
Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on
18.06.2015
and
she
remained
under
treatment
at
the
said
hospital
upto
19.06.2015. It appears and the record
reveals that on 19.06.2015, the mother of
the respondents-petitioners was shifted to
Midland Healthcare & Research Centre,
Near
Kapurthala,
Mahanagar,
Lucknowwhere, she remained admitted
from 19.06.2015 to 06.07.2015. She was
discharged from the hospital on 07.07.2015
and was taken back to her residence where,
she expired on the same date.

8. It is only thereafter, that the
father of the respondents-petitioners who
was a pensioner laid a claim for medical
reimbursement to the tune of Rs.7,09,032/-
on 09.09.2015. Necessary details regarding
the medical expenditure were disclosed
alongwith
the
representation
claiming
medical
reimbursement.
The
medical
reimbursement claimed by the father of the
respondents-petitioners towards treatment
of his wife, i.e., mother of the respondentspetitioners remained unattended. According
to the respondents-petitioners, no order
whatsoever was communicated to them
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
untill the death of their father on
09.01.2025. The record however, reveals
otherwise. As per the documents placed on
record, the medical claim was laid on
09.09.2015 which appears to have been
rejected by the Jal Nigam on 21.11.2015.
The father of the respondents-petitioners
having received the order dated 21.11.2015
had made a representation against the
aforementioned order on 20.12.2015. It is
this protest through a representation which
appears to have remained pending. Due to
lack of knowledge, the respondentspetitioners under such circumstance appear
to have instituted the previous writ petition
no. 3641 of 2025 which was disposed of on
10.04.2025 in terms of the order extracted
above. The respondents-petitioners having
been granted liberty to institute the fresh
proceedings filed the second writ petition
before this Court praying for the relief as
has been reproduced here-in-above. The
writ court on being satisfied that the claim
of the respondents-petitioners is squarely
covered under the judgment rendered
inWrit-A
No.
2000284
of
2014
(Mohammad Aslam & Ors. Vs State of
U.P. and Ors.) proceeded to decide the writ
petition, in light of the said judgment
without adverting to the merits of the order
dated 21.11.2015. The order passed by the
Writ Court disposing of the writ petition
filed by the respondents-petitioners reads as
under:-

"1.
Heard
Sri
Ajay
Kishor
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Aditya Mohan, who has filed his
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos.1
and 2. The said Vakalatnama is taken on
record.

2. Present petition has been filed
claiming that the petitioners are entitled for
reimbursement of the medical expenses,
which
has
not
been
paid
by
the
respondents.

3. The said issue with regard to
medical reimbursement was decided by this
Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2023
passed in Writ - A No.2000284 of 2014
'Mohammad Aslam and 4 Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.' (Annexure - 11).

4. Considering the fact that the
entitlement has already been decided by
this Court in the case of Mohammad Aslam
& Ors. (supra), the present petition is
disposed off directing the respondents to
process the medical claims made by the
petitioners in accordance with law and in
the light of the judgment in the case of
Mohammad Aslam & Ors. (supra), and pay
the same with all expedition, preferably
within a period of two months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this
order."

9.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents-petitioners has argued that the
writ court firstly has not delved into the
order passed on 21.11.2015 and secondly,
the delay in instituting the proceedings has
escaped the attention of the writ court and
the aspect of heavy latches in institution of
the writ petition after such a long delay was
also not considered at all. It is thus argued
that without dealing with the order dated
21.11.2015 on merit and without adverting
to on the aspect of delay the writ court has
decided the writ proceedings against the
legal position. It is argued that the
respondents-petitioners whose claim was
not covered under the judgment placed
reliance upon, are not entitled to the relief
as has been granted by the Writ Court. The
argument put forth by learned counsel for
the petitioners is attractive, which deserves
scrutiny. The legal position in this regard
needs to be considered and appreciated.
7 All. U.P. Jal Nigam Rural & Anr. Vs. Tarun Kumar Sharma & Anr.
41
10. It is not in dispute that the father
of the respondents-petitioners was a pensioner
who died in the month of January, 2025. It is
equally undisputed that the mother of the
petitioners who was entitled to medical
reimbursement
in
the year 2015 had
undergone the medical treatment. The only
impediment according to the petitioners
coming in the way of such a claim was an
Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2013 which
for ready reference is reproduced below:-

"प्रधान कायाालय उ०प्र० जल ननगम 6 राणा
प्रताि मागा, लखनऊ।
पत्रािंक-1114/ए०सी ले०सा०/ धच०
प्रतत०/3091520/13 दिनािंक-06/06/2013
कायाालय ज्ञाि

(उ०५० िल तनगम तनिेशक मण्डल की
160 िीिं बैठक के मि सिं० 160.07 में भलये गये
तनणगय के अनुपालन में वििाग के सेिारत /
सेिातनिृत्त काभमगकों द्िारा स्ियिं के एििं अपने
आधश्रतों के प्रिेश के अन्िर एििं प्रिेश के बाहर
सिी प्राईिेर् (तनिी) धचककत्सालयों में इलाि की
सुवििा । प्रततपूततग उ०प्र० िल तनगम की खराब
वित्तीय जस्थतत को िेखते हुये तत्काल प्रिाि से
समाप्त की िाती है।

उक्त पररजस्थततयों के पररपेक्ष्य में
वििाग के सेिारत / सेिातनिृत्त काभमगकों द्िारा
स्ियिं के एििं अपने आधश्रतों के सरकारी
अस्पतालों,
मेडडकल
कॉलेिों
एििं
सरकारी
आयुविगज्ञान सिंस्थानों में मात्र कैंसर एििं ब्रेन
दर्यूमर (न्यूरो सिगरी) के कराये गये इलाि में
ऑपरेशन एििं ििाओिं पर व्यय के विरूद्ि
सरकारी िरो पर िेय िनराभश का 50 प्रततशत
की ही प्रततपूततग की िायेगी। िाडग/रूम चािग तथा
पैथालॉिी एििं अन्य िािंचो पर ककये गये ककसी
प्रकार के व्यय की प्रततपूततग नहीिं की िायेगी।
(ए०के० समत्तल)
"प्रबन्ध ननदेशक"

11. The aforesaid memorandum, as
it appears is nothing but a resolution of the
Board in its 160th meeting, whereby, the
benefit of medical reimbursement to the
employees of U.P. Jal Nigam is said to
have been taken away.

12. If the Office Memorandum
dated 06.06.2013 is valid, the question of
entitlement of the medical reimbursement
on the basis of some claim laid in the year
2015
would
obviously
become
nonmaintainable. The position of statute and
rules and regulation framed thereunder
thus, becomes relevant. It may be gainful to
bring on record that upon the constitution
of U.P. Jal Nigam in the year 1975, under
an Act known as U.P. Water Supply and
Sewerage Act, 1975(hereinafter referred to
as
Act
1975)
the
services
of
the
respondents-petitioners' father who was
working in the erstwhile local Self
Engineering
Govt.
Department
stood
protected by virtue of section 37 of the Act
which for ready reference is extracted
below:-

"Transfer of employees to Nigam.
- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this
section every person, who was employed in
the Local Self Government Engineering
Department of the State Government shall
on and from the appointed date become
employee of the Nigam and shall hold his
office or service therein by the same tenure,
at the same remuneration and upon same
other terms and conditions, and with the
same rights and privileges as to pension,
gratulty and other matters as he would
have held the same on the appointed date if
this Act has not come into force, and shall
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
continue to do so until his employment in
the Nigam is terminated or until his
remuneration or other terms and conditions
of services are revised or altered by the
Nigam under or in pursuance of any law or
in accordance with any provision which for
the time being governs his service:
Provided that nothing contained in this
sub-section shall apply to any such
employes, who by notice in writing given to
the State Government within such time as
the State Government may, by general or
special
order,
specify,
intimates
his
intention of not becoming an employee of
the Nigam:

Provided further that the services
of any employee referred to in the
preceding
proviso
under
the
State
Government shall stand terminated on
account of abolition of the post held by him
and he shall be entitled from the State
Government to compensation equivalent -

(i) in the case of a permanent
employee, to three month's remuneration

(ii) in the case of a temporary
employee, to one month's remuneration.

(2) The sums standing to the
credit of the employees referred to in subsection (1) in any
pension. provident fund, gratuity or other
like funds constituted for them shall be
transferred by the State Government to the
Nigam along with any accumulated interest
due till the appointed date and with the
accounts relating to such funds and the
Nigam shall, to the exclusion of the State
Government, be liable for payment of
pension, provident fund, gratuity or other
like sums as may be payable to such
employees at the appropriate time in
accordance with the conditions of their
service.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, or in any other law for the time
being in force, the transfer of services of
any employee to the Nigam under subsection (1) shall not entitle any such
employee to any compensation under that
Act or such other law and no such claim
shall be entertained by any court, tribunal
or authority.

(4)
Every
permanent
or
temporary employee of the Local SelfGovernment Engineering Department of
the State Government under sub-section (1)
shall on and from the appointed date, be a
permanent or temporary employee of the
Nigam, as the case may be, against a
permanent or temporary post which shall
stand created in the establishment of the
Nigam with effect from the appointed date.

(5) An employee referred to in the
first proviso to sub-section (1) shall be
deemed to have continued to be in the
service of the State Government between
the appointed date and the date of abolition
of posts under the second proviso to that
sub-section, but the State Government shall
be entitled to reimbursement from the
Nigam of the remuneration pald by it to
such employee for that period and also of
the compensation referred to in the second
proviso to that sub-section.

(6) Nothing in para 426 or para
436 of the Civil Service Regulations as
applicable to Government servants under
the rule making control of the State
Government in relation to retrenchment or
abolition of posts shall, except to the extent
provided in this section, apply to any
employee referred to in sub-section (1).

(7)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the foregoing sub-sections-

(a) the services of no person who
was
employed
in
the
Local
SelfGovernment Engineering Department of
the State Government immediately before
the appointed date against whom any
disciplinary proceeding was pending or to
7 All. U.P. Jal Nigam Rural & Anr. Vs. Tarun Kumar Sharma & Anr.
43
whom any notice or order of, termination
of his services or compulsory retirement
had been issued before the appointed date
shall stand transferred to the Nigam on or
from the appointed date and such persons
may be dealt with after the appointed date
in such manner and by such authority as
the State Government may by general orspecial order specify in this behalf;

(b) if the services of any employee
of the State Government stand transferred
under sub-section (1) to the Nigam, the
Nigam shall be competent after such
transfer to take such disciplinary or other
action as it thinks fit against or in respect
of such employee having regard to any act
or omission or conduct or record of such
employee while he was in service of the
State Government."

13. The U.P. Jal Nigam in exercise
of the powers under section 97 of the
aforementioned Act further promulgated
the regulations known as the U.P. Jal
Nigam Service of Engineers(Public Health
Branch) Regulations, 1978. As per Rule 31
of the aforementioned regulations, the
allowances admissible to the members of
service were protected therein. Regulation
31 for ready reference is extracted below:-

 "Except as provided in these
regulations the pay, allowance, pension,
leave, imposition of penalties and other
conditions of service of the members of the
service shall be regulated by rules,
regulations
of
the
orders
applicable
generally to the Government servants
serving in connection with the affairs of the
State."

14. A plain reading of the aforesaid
regulation makes it abundantly clear that
the issues in respect of which no regulation
was framed, were left open to be governed
under
the
rules
applicable
to
the
Government Servant. In so far as the
medical reimbursement is concerned, rules
were framed by the State Government in
the year 2011 under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The first amendment
made in the said Rules was notified on
04.03.2014. The amended Rule 11 of the
medical reimbursement Rules 2011 reads
as under:-

 "तात्काभलक / आपातकालीन उपचार
:-

ककसी लािाथी को राज्य के िीतर या
बाहर तात्काभलक / आपात जस्थतत में या यात्रा
पर ककसी तनिी धचककत्सालय या प्राधिकृत
सिंवििाकृत धचककत्सालय में उपचार प्राप्त करने
की अनुमन्यता होगी। उपचार की लागत राज्य
के िीतर उपचार कराने की िशा में सिंिय गााँिी
स्नातकोत्तर आयुविगज्ञान सिंस्थान या राज्य से
बाहर उपचार की िशा में अखखल िारतीय
आयुविगज्ञान सिंस्थान, नई 'दिल्ली की िरों पर
प्रततपूरणीय होगी और प्राधिकृत सिंवििाकृत
धचककत्सालयों में उपचार कराने की िशा मे
उपचार की लागत सी०िी०एच०एस० की िरों पर
प्रततपूरणीय होगी। प्रततबन्ि यह है ककः- (क)
उपचारी धचककत्सक द्िारा आपात िशा प्रनाखणत
की िाय।

(ख) रोगी या उसके सिंबिंिी द्िारा
अपने उपचार प्रारम्ि होने के दिनािंक से 30
दिनों के िीतर सूधचत कर दिया िाय।

(ग)
आपात
जस्थतत
में
एअर
एम्बुलेन्स पर होने िाले व्यय की िनराभश िी
प्रततपूणीय होगी।"

15. The aforesaid rule became
applicable to the employees of the Jal
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nigam by virtue of Regulation 31 which by
reference
makes
the
Medical
Reimbursement Rules, 2011 applicable to
the members of service past or present
belonging to U.P. Jal Nigam. It is within
the scope of aforesaid Rules that the
medical reimbursement claim was put up
by the father of the respondents-petitioners
which has come to be rejected on the
strength of the office memorandum dated
06.06.2013.

16. The order dated 21.11.2015
which was assailed in the writ petition is
based on no other reason except the office
memorandum dated 06.06.2013.

17. The question that crops up for
consideration before this Court is as to
whether the Office Memorandum dated
06.06.2013 would bar the maintainability
of the medical reimbursement claim as has
been laid by the respondents-petitioners. In
order to understand the legal implications
of
the
office
memorandum
dated
06.06.2013, it is desirable to refer to
section 97(1) of theAct 1975 which for
ready reference is extracted below:-

"97. Regulations. - (1) The Nigam
and a Jal Sansthan may, with the previous
approval of the State Government, make
regulations, not inconsistent with this Act
and the rules made thereunder, for the
administration of the affairs of the Nigam
or a Jal Sansthan."

18. A plain reading of section 97(1)
clearly reveals that any regulations made
by the U.P. Jal Nigam ought to have a
previous approval of the State Government.
In the present case, it is not the case of the
petitioners that office memorandum dated
06.06.2013 which contains the resolution of
the board adopted in its 160th meeting was
approved by the State Government at any
point of time. Unless the resolution passed
by the Board was approved by the State
Government, the same would not assume
the sanctity of law as postulated under
Section 37 of the Act, 1975. In other words,
by a simple resolution passed by the board
without prior approval of the State
Government, no provision of Regulations,
1978 can be superseded or made redundant
by U.P. Jal Nigam. Thus, the mere
existence of the office memorandum dated
06.06.2013 cannot supersede the mandate
of the regulations and the protection
available to the respondents-petitioners
under law remains intact.

19. On a conjunctive reading of
Section 37 with Section 97 of the Act 1975
read alongwith Regulation 31, we come to
an irresistible conclusion that the office
memorandum dated 06.06.2013 would not
override the provision of Regulations as
well as the Medical Reimbursement Rules,
2011 unless the same was approved by the
State Government which is not the case at
hand. Thus, the Office Memorandum dated
06.06.2013 in our humble consideration
would not bar and cannot be construed
against the mandate of Rule 11 of the
Medical Reimbursement Rules 2011 as
were applicable to the case at hand. The
office memorandum dated 06.06.2013 was
wrongly applied to reject the claim of the
petitioners, being non est. The order passed
by the competent authority on 21.11.2015
on the premise of office memorandum
dated
06.06.2013
in
our
humble
consideration deserves to be set aside.

20. Having regard to the legal
position discussed here-in-above, we are of
the considered opinion that the writ petition
deserves to be allowed and the special
appeal arising from the judgment impugned
7 All. Mahesh Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
45
herein for the reasons recorded
above, deserves to be rejected. The delay
on the part of respondents was bona fide
and a valid claim for reimbursement cannot
be objected on such a premise.

21. We accordingly allow the writ
petition and set aside the order dated
21.11.2015. The respondents are directed to
consider the medical claim put up on
09.09.2015 and process the same in
accordance with the rules. The amount
admissible to the respondents-petitioners
shall accordingly be released in their
favour, expeditiously preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
service of a certified copy of this order.

22. The present Special Appeal is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 45
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 947 of 2024

Mahesh Kumar Chauhan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arun Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Effect of pendency of criminal case on the claim
of compassionate appointment, especially in the
circumstances when there was no criminal
history of the petitioner to his credit and the
District Magistrate had also issued character
certificate in his favour.
Headnotes
(A)
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Petitioner's father was
died, while working as Group D employee
-
Character
certificate
in
favour
of
petitioner
was
issued
by
competent
authority with a rider that it would not be
effective in the event petitioner was found
subsequently convicted in the criminal
case - The character certificate was valid
on the date of its issuance - Old enmity of
informant with petitioner was admitted in
the F.I.R. and there is no criminal history
of petitioner - Widow was not gainfully
employer anywhere - However, claim for
compassionate appointment was rejected
only on the ground that there is criminal
case pending against him and his claim for
compassionate
appointment
could
be
reconsidered only after his acquittal in the
pending
criminal
case
-
Validity
challenged :
Held : Though there is no indefensible right
vested in the candidate to seek appointment
while he is implicated in the criminal case but
mere pendency of criminal case itself cannot be
a ground to generally deny appointment to a
candidate more especially in a case of
compassionate appointment - In matters where
criminal
case
is
pending
and
character
certificate has been issued by the District
Magistrate may be subject to the final outcome
of the criminal case, it should not become a
guiding factor for the employer to deny
compassionate appointment to a candidate as
the nature of compassionate appointment is
quite distinguishable from general category
appointment and also which are offered in
service matters. [Paras 8 and 10] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Avtar Singh v. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471
- referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords