Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 298 (TS)

Mohd Baba Shafiuddin v. State of Telangana

2025-04-10

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I V appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri Gangula Ashok Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows : “......to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in refusing to extend the Medical Reimbursement Benefits to the petitioner as given to other similarly placed employees vide proceedings dated 17/04/2010 contrary to the directions and orders passed by this Honourable Court in W.P.No.26891 of 2013 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the grant of medical benefits to me as given to the other similarly placed employees by setting aside the refusal proceedings issued by the respondent No.1 dated 18/04/2023 in the interest of justice and pass…” 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Respondents are refusing to extend the Medical Reimbursement Benefits to the petitioner as given to other similarly placed employees vide proceedings dated 17/04/2010 contrary to the directions and orders passed by this Honourable Court in W.P.No.26891 of 2013 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and in particular para Nos. 3 to 5, 10 & 14 are extracted hereunder:- 3. In reply to the averments made in Para (2) and Para (3) of this petition. I respectfully submit that, the Government has permitted the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board vide Govt. Lr.No.14796/Tex.1/2009, dated:17.03.2010 cited, to take a decision for sanction of Medical Reimbursement of the certain employees of Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, keeping in view of the Budgetary provision available under salary provision duly placing the matter before the Board. 4. Lr.No.14796/Tex.1/2009, dated:17.03.2010 cited, to take a decision for sanction of Medical Reimbursement of the certain employees of Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, keeping in view of the Budgetary provision available under salary provision duly placing the matter before the Board. 4. Further, it is to inform that, a complaint No.159/2010/B1 filed by Sri.V. Adishesh Retired Development Officer, Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, to extend the Andhra Pradesh Integrated Medical Attendance Rules 1972 to the employees of Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board. 5. In this regard, the Government has addressed a letter to the Lokayukta vide Govt. Lr.No.16026/Tex.1/2010, dated:22.12.2011 cited, stating that, the extension of medical reimbursement benefits to the employees of the Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, under Andhra Pradesh Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972 was examined by the Government in consultation with advisory Department and it was informed that the proposal was advised against vide Govt. Letter No.17238/Tex.1/2008, dated:22.12.2008. 10. It is to inform that, vide Govt. Letter No.3090/FP&MSME/2022-3, Dated:05.01.2023 cited, in consultation with the advisory Department, after careful examination, the Government has informed the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Khadi and Village Industries Board. Hyderabad that, the APIMA Rules are applicable only for the employees to the State Government/Pensioners. 14. In reply to the averments made in Para (12) of this petition. I respectfully submit that, in combined state i.e. Andhra Pradesh, the Government has permitted the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board vide Govt. Lr.No.14796/Tex.1/2009, dated: 17.03.2010 cited, to take a decision for sanction of Medical Reimbursement of the certain 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.26891 of 2013 and the said Writ Petition was disposed vide order of this Court, dated 04.08.2022. 6. The order of this Court, dated 04.08.2022 passed in W.P.No. 26891 of 2013 and in particular para Nos. 5 & 6 are extracted hereunder:- 5. 6. The order of this Court, dated 04.08.2022 passed in W.P.No. 26891 of 2013 and in particular para Nos. 5 & 6 are extracted hereunder:- 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court that Letter dated 11.08.2016 filed as material document in support of the present Writ Petition, vide Lr.No. Estt/G1/Medical Claim/2015-2016 addressed to the Director of Medical and Health Office, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad where under the Joint Chief Executive Officer requested the Director Medical Board, Hyderabad to recommend the medical claim of the petitioner for sanction of reimbursement of medical expenses of petitioner’s wife (dependant). The said letter dated 11.08.2016 reads as under: “Vide reference cited Sri Md.Baba Shafiuddin, Assistant Director/Retired Pensioner has requested to recommend the medical claim for sanction and reimbursement of Medical Expenditure of his dependent (wife). In this connection, it is to submit that his wife was admitted in the premier Hospital, Hyderabad as emergency and obtained treatment, duly incurring expenditure of Rs.1,34,899/-. The Hospital is recognized by the Government of Telangana for the purpose of treatment as referral hospital for Government employees, Retired Pensioners and their dependents vide proceedings of DME Telangana, Hyderabad No. 1353/P1/2015, dated 30.04.2015. The Bills in original along with two Xerox sets are herewith enclosed. In view of the above, the original bills (with necessary enclosures) along with two xerox sets of dependent of Sri Baba Shafiuddin, Assistant Direct, Retired pensioner are herewith enclosed for scrutiny”. 6. The counsel for the 2 nd respondent submits that it is true that in few cases the medical claim was sanctioned and orders passed by the 2 nd respondent herein but then the 2 nd respondent is totally helpless and it is only the 1 st respondent who shall take the decision in the matter. 6. The counsel for the 2 nd respondent submits that it is true that in few cases the medical claim was sanctioned and orders passed by the 2 nd respondent herein but then the 2 nd respondent is totally helpless and it is only the 1 st respondent who shall take the decision in the matter. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to examine the Letter dated 11.08.2016 vide letter number Estt/G1/Medical Claim 2015/16 addressed to the Director of Medical Health Office, Government of Telangana, Sultan Bazaar, Koti, Hyderabad by the Joint Chief Executive Officer, Assistant Director (Establishment), Telangana State, Khadi and Village Industries Board, Hyderabad and also the representation dated 06.03.2018 and 20.02.2019 of the petitioner herein addressed to the 2 nd respondent herein and to consider the same and pass appropriate orders duly considering the case of the petitioner for providing medical reimbursement benefits on par with other similarly situated employees who were granted reimbursement of medical expenditure met with grant in aid provided under salaries Head by the State Government within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner to extend the medical reimbursement benefits to the petitioner as extended to other similarly placed employees vide proceedings No.14796/ Tex.1/ 2009, dated 17.03.2010, the same benefits however had not been extended in respect of petitioner herein, in spite of clear orders of this Court in favour of the petitioner, dated 04.08.2022 passed in W.P.No. 26891 of 2013, and impugned proceedings, No.3090/ FP&MSME/ 2022, dated 18.04.2023 had been issued by the 1 st respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for granting medical benefits to the petitioner as extended to other similarly placed employees, on the ground that the petitioner is an employee of the 2 nd respondent Board and since the petitioner is not a State Government employee. 8. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner is an employee of the 2 nd respondent Board presently since the 2 nd respondent Board is functioning under the 1 st respondent Authority and moreover, since the 2 nd respondent Board received regular aid from the respondent State Government therefore, it cannot be contended that the 2 nd respondent Board does not fall within the meaning of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of I ndia. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 (referred to and extracted above), contends that the request of the petitioner was examined and the same had been rejected on the ground that API MA Rules are applicable only for the employees of the State Government/ Pensioners. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I V appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 does not dispute the fact that the said benefit of medical reimbursement had been extended to similarly placed employees prior to the bifurcation of the State but only contends that after bifurcation of the State, there has been no single instance where the benefits had been extended to any other individual and therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner herein as well. 11. This Court opines that the petitioner is not a State Government employee cannot be the ground to deny the relief which had been extended to similarly situated persons, in view of the fact that the 2 nd respondent Board admittedly is not inexistence at all and since the 2 nd respondent Board is presently functioning under the control of the 1 st respondent and since there is no dispute that the 2 nd respondent Board admittedly had received regular grant in aid from the State Government when it was inexistence and therefore, the plea that the petitioner is not a State Government employee and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of medical benefits is not tenable, and the same is rejected. This Court further opines that in view of the fact that the 2 nd respondent is not inexistence as on date and since the petitioner is presently working under the control of the 1 st respondent Authority, the request of the petitioner to extend the Medical reimbursement benefits to the petitioner needs to be reconsidered by respondent No.1. 12. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondentNo.1 (referred to and extracted above) c) The contents of the proceedings No.3090/ FP&MSME/ 2022, dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1 st respondent to the petitioner. d) The submissions made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the 2 nd respondent Board is not inexistence as on date and the petitioner is working under the control of the respondent No.1 authority as on date. e) The order of this Court, dated 04.08.2022 passed in W.P.No. 26891 of 2013 (referred to and extracted above). f) The fact admitted even by the respondents that petitioner is working under the control of the 1 st respondent as on date and the 2 nd respondent Board is not functioning as on date. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to reconsider its decision made vide proceedings No.3090/ FP&MSME/ 2022, dated 18.04.2023, rejecting petitioner’s request for grant of medical reimbursement benefits to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance to law and duly communicate its decision on the subject issue to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.