JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition involving quashment of orders at Annexures-6 and 8 respectively and thereby issuing a mandamus directing opposite party no.1-the Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar (‘OFDC’ in short) to reimburse petitioner’s medical expenses as submitted vide Annexure-4 series after adjustment of advance medical allowance. 2. Heard Mr. Biraja Prasad Das and associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no.1 along with his associates. None appears for opposite party nos.2 and 3. 3. Short background involving the case is that petitioner started his career as a L.D. Assistant under the OFDC on 31.8.1990 and was posted in the Office of Divisional Manager, Cuttack Plantation Division (O.P.D.C. Ltd.). Subsequently he was transferred to Bhubaneswar Plantation Division in the year 1997. While continuing in the Bhubaneswar Plantation Division, he was transferred to Head Office in April, 1999. In January, 2001, he was transferred to Jeypore (CKL) Division, Jeypore and worked there for six years. On 11.01.2007, while continuing as such, for treatment of his mother Smt. Sarojini Pattanaik, being a dependant availed a sum of Rs.3,000/-as medical advance after due sanction by the opposite party no.1 on 26.9.2000 vide Annexure-1. For the Doctor’s finding his mother suffering from ‘Complete Cardiac Block’ and there required Implantation of Pacemaker with his mother being advised vide Annexure-2, petitioner’s mother underwent surgery and a pacemaker was implanted in the premier Government Hospital of the State, i.e. SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack with a total cost of Rs.51,605/-. While matter stood thus, petitioner was transferred to Jeypore during his mother’s illness. It is stated that petitioner getting disturbed for his transfer taking place and for non-grant of Essentiality Certificate within time frame he could not submit bills for reimbursement and ultimately on 30.10.2003, he received the Essentiality Certificate. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his medical bills along with Essentiality Certificate on 4.11.2003 before the opposite parties for reimbursement of expenses incurred on account of his mother’s treatment vide Annexure-4 series. It is averred after submission of all necessary documents, opposite party no.2-General Manager, OFDC Ltd., Balangir Commercial Zone, Balangir on 25.11.2003 forwarded petitioner’s claim to the head office for sanction at their end. Receiving all documents from opposite party no.2, opposite party no.1 did not release the amount for long time. It is averred after submission of all necessary documents, opposite party no.2-General Manager, OFDC Ltd., Balangir Commercial Zone, Balangir on 25.11.2003 forwarded petitioner’s claim to the head office for sanction at their end. Receiving all documents from opposite party no.2, opposite party no.1 did not release the amount for long time. Finding no option, petitioner was constrained to send a representation for drawing attention of opposite party no.1 which was followed by several representations. It is after lapse of five and half years, opposite party no.1 vide his office order No.535 rejected the petitioner’s case for reimbursement on the ground that the claim is barred by time and thereby also directed the petitioner to make the refund of the advance of Rs.3,000/-he had received immediately with further threatening that failure of refund of such money, it shall be recovered from his salary vide Annexure-6. Petitioner on receipt of the rejection order dated 23.12.2008 on the same day itself filed the review application for reconsideration of the rejection by the opposite party no.1. However, opposite party no.1 without taking into consideration the reason of delay in submitting such claim rejected the review application at the instance of the petitioner on 22.01.2009 vide Annexure-8. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking into account the background detailed herein submitted that admittedly the Essentiality Certificate was granted by the doctor on 30.10.2003 and the delay in grant of Essentiality Certificate was also bona fide particularly for want of so many formalities. Further, as the petitioner was posted away from the place the authority deciding on Essentiality Certificate, for there being ultimate grant of such certificate, it is thus contended that there is mechanical rejection of the claim of the petitioner and for the material establishing treatment with surgery of the patient, the mother of the petitioner and there is grant of Essentiality Certificate establishing such treatment being undertaken, there was no reason to reject such claim. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that rejection of the claim of the petitioner contravenes provision in the Orissa Service Medical Attendance Rules. Further a stand is also taken involving Annexure-6 drawing the attention of the Court to the provision of Orissa Service Medical Attendance Rules requiring to the drawing/controlling officer to cancel such claim and the officer cancelled the claim of the petitioner is claimed to be not a drawing/controlling officer. Further a stand is also taken involving Annexure-6 drawing the attention of the Court to the provision of Orissa Service Medical Attendance Rules requiring to the drawing/controlling officer to cancel such claim and the officer cancelled the claim of the petitioner is claimed to be not a drawing/controlling officer. On the premises that there are genuine bills that too provided by a premier Government Hospital of the State, Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that claims of this nature should not have been rejected on technical ground. Petitioner thus while claiming that there is serious victimization of the petitioner, for rejection of a genuine claim not only that the State Authority also failed to discharge its duty and obligation to its employee or his dependants. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly makes a claim for allowing the writ petition and issuing suitable direction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while justifying such claim has also taken support of four judgments, which are as under: (1) The Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana & Others Vrs Vidya Sagar, Judgment dated 16th July, 2016, passed in Civil Appeal No.4384, Supreme Court of India. (2) Surjit Singh Vrs State of Punjab & Others, Judgment dated 31st January, 1996, Supreme Court of India. (3) Manoj Jain Vrs State of Haryana & Others, Judgment dated 3rd December, 2018, passed in CWP No.13494/2016, Punjab & Haryana High Court. (4) Milap Singh Vrs Union of India & Another, Judgment dated 13th July, 2004, Delhi High Court. 6. In his opposition Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party no.1 referring to the documents at Annexure-E submitted that for the Clause-8(3) therein, medical reimbursement should have been made under Clause-8(3) of the Office Memorandum dated 21.01.1987, Annexure-A therein claim on medical reimbursement should have been preferred within three months of expiry of duration of treatment as certified by concerned medical officer. Further also referring to the documents at Annexure-B a further application at the instance of the petitioner to draw further advance of a sum of Rs.5,000/-for his mother going to undertake surgery of ‘Femonel Hernia’ being advised by Assistant Professor (Surgery), S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and the disclosure through Annexure-B/1 contended that for petitioner’s mother not undertaking surgery of ‘Femonel Hernia’, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel contended that there has been attempt for false claim by the petitioner. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel contended that there has been attempt for false claim by the petitioner. Referring to other documents available therein in the counter on behalf of opposite parties, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel again submitted that for the failure of the petitioner’s making claim within the desired period and for the petitioner even unable to make the claim for a long period, the authority was compelled to reject the medical claim made by the petitioner and thereby issuing separate orders had rightly directed for recovery of advance so paid to the petitioner to be refunded back or to be recovered from his salary. 7. Taking this Court to the objection through paragraph nos.4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel contended that the delay in making the claim is not justified and thus claimed for rejection of the writ petition having no merit. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds there is no dispute that for the provision at Clause-8.3, the Office Memorandum clearly discloses the medical reimbursement should be preferred within three months of the expiry of duration of the treatment as certified by the concerned medical officer. It is looking to the Essentiality Certificate being granted only on 30.10.2003, there is no doubt that the certificate required for such reimbursement was ultimately granted by the competent authority only on 30.10.2003. From Annexure-4 series at Page-17 onwards, it clearly appears that the mother of the petitioner had undergone the treatment for CHB:PPI from 01.01.2001 to 13.02.2001 as a patient of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. It is here looking to the documents at Annexure-2 it clearly appears that it contained a certificate of Professor and H.O.D., Cardiology, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack through the Department of Cardiology at Column-‘Ka’ running Page-13 where it clearly appears that there is a recommendation by non-else than the Professor and H.O.D. involving Complete Heart Block and at ‘Kha’ therein there is suggestion for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation. It also appears based on this report only, the competent authority had released a sum of Rs.3,000/-as advance for undertaking the surgery involving his mother. It also appears based on this report only, the competent authority had released a sum of Rs.3,000/-as advance for undertaking the surgery involving his mother. Looking to the further documents appearing through Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, this Court finds there is again submission of one more application for grant of further advance by the petitioner taking support of another advisory of the Professor (Surgery) of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack recommending therein surgery involving ‘Femonel Hernia’ is clearly available at page-41. Both the documents are being granted by competent doctors of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Petitioner cannot be held responsible for his claiming for 2nd advance as he was simply to follow the directions of the competent doctors. Looking to the documents at Annexure-4 series running through Pages-17, 18 and 19, this Court finds there is no dispute in the grant of Essentiality Certificate clearly indicating petitioner’s mother undergoing CHB:PPI surgery in the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. The Essentiality Certificate also contained the signatures of all concerned as required under law. For delay in grant of Essentiality Certificate by competent authority the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Further being an employee it also appears that the employer had no attempt for expediting grant of Essentiality Certificate. Through the reading of the whole objection and taking into consideration the contention raised by Mr.S.K. Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties, this Court nowhere finds either any denial to petitioner’s mother undertaking such surgery in the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack nor there is any dispute to the authenticity of the initial claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 and further in the grant of the Essentiality Certificate by the competent person though at a belated stage. This Court therefore observes for the admitted undertaking of the surgery involving the mother of the petitioner Complete Heart Block through Permanent Pacemaker Implantation (CHB:PPI), in such view of the matter, petitioner again requesting that there is requirement of treatment of surgery of his mother on ‘Femonel Hernia’ since based on the recommendation of a Professor of Surgery of SCB Medical College being granted by competent authority could not have stood on the way of release of medical claims. So, only question remains to be considered here if the petitioner should be deprived of reimbursement of the claim, for there being delay in submission of Essentiality Certificate being contrary to the provision at Clause 8.3 of the Office Memorandum. It is here taking into consideration some of the decisions, more particularly the decisions through 1996 SCC (2) 336, then the decision in the case of Milap Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and another, reported in 113 (2004) DLT 91, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court through judgment dated 16th July, 2009 involving Civil Appeal No.4384 of 2009. A decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 03.12.2018, CWP No.13494/2016. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pritivi Nath Chopra Vrs. Union of India & another, reported in 2004 (III) AD, Delhi 569, this Court observe that law of the land is to find out whether there is support to the undertaking of surgery of the dependant by the claimant concerned or not. This Court here observes that petitioner makes claim on the basis of genuine documents. Thus, there is no question of blocking the claim on technical ground. Looking to the background involving the claim involving the case at hand and for the grant of Essentiality Certificate by a competent authority clearly proving undertaking of such treatment that too claim since based on genuine documents, further for the framing of rule to provide such facilities to the employees as well as their dependants, this Court observes such claims should not have been denied on mere technicality of being submitted after long delay again when no fault of the petitioner. There is no case even that the Essentiality Certificate is an un-genuine one. This Court observes delay in submission of the claim cannot be attributed to the claimant and as such the petitioner is deserved to get the relief as claimed in the writ application. 9. This Court here also takes into account the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of reimbursement of medical bills in the case of Sivakanta Jha Vrs Union of India and others, decided on 13.4.2018 deciding W.P.(C) No.694 of 2015. 9. This Court here also takes into account the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of reimbursement of medical bills in the case of Sivakanta Jha Vrs Union of India and others, decided on 13.4.2018 deciding W.P.(C) No.694 of 2015. Looking to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly in paragraph-15 thereunder, this Court also directs the Chief Secretary of the State of Odisha to constitute a Secretary Level High Power Committee in the concerned Ministry, which shall not only keep the track of such claims and meet every month for quick disposal of such cases after taking into account all aspects. 10. This Court, therefore, while observing that rejection of the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-6 and the subsequent communication vide Annexure-8 on rejection of the review of the order at Annexure-6 being sought for by the petitioner ought to be interfered set aside both the orders vide Annexures-6 and 8 respectively. This court while further observing that such attitude amounts to inhumane attitude by an employer to an employee, for defaulting reimbursement of the money spent by an employee for long sixteen years, this Court while quashing the order at Annexures-6 and 8 issues mandamus to the opposite party no.1-Managing Director, OFDC Ltd., Bhubaneswar to calculate the entitlements of the petitioner through the claim bill after adjusting a sum of Rs.3,000/-paid by way of advance and pay the balance entitlements along with interest @7% per annum all through. In addition to above for finding there is serious negligence by an employer in the matter of medical reimbursement and looking to the harassment to the poor employee fighting all these years in the matter of medical claim reimbursement and this Court also imposes a cost of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand) on the opposite party no.1. The cost along with the entitlements of the petitioner as directed hereinabove shall be paid to the petitioner in one block within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this Court’s judgment along with copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. Writ petition succeeds with award of cost of Rs.20,000/-. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Free copy of this judgment be handed over to learned AGA for communicating the same to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar for compliance of the direction herein.