Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 943 (ALL)

U. P. Jal Nigam Rural v. Tarun Kumar Sharma

2025-07-16

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, PRAKASH SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : 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 Appeal 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 Appeal 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 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 respondents- petitioners 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, Lucknow where, 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 respondents-petitioners remained unattended. 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 respondents-petitioners remained unattended. According to the respondents-petitioners, no order whatsoever was communicated to them 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 respondents-petitioners 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 in Writ Appeal 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 Appeal No. 2000284 of 2014 Mohammad Aslam and 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. The said issue with regard to medical reimbursement was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No. 2000284 of 2014 Mohammad Aslam and 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. 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:- 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. 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 non-maintainable. 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. 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 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 sub-section (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 sub-section (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 Self- Government 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). (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 Self- Government Engineering Department of the State Government immediately before the appointed date against whom any disciplinary proceeding was pending or to 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 or-special 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. 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:- 15. The aforesaid rule became applicable to the employees of the Jal 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 the Act 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 th dated 06.06.2013 which contains the resolution of the board adopted in its 160 meeting was approved by the State Government at any point of time. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that office memorandum th dated 06.06.2013 which contains the resolution of the board adopted in its 160 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 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 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.