HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2289 of 2023 Dinesh Chandra Pandey ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .….Respondents Present:- Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 20.09.2022, Annexure 9 to the writ petition of the District Education Officer, Basic Education, Nainital and communication dated 22.10.2022 of the respondent no.3, Deputy Education Officer, Bhimtal, Nainital. By these communications, the petitioner was required to remove certain defects for his claim for medical reimbursement. The petitioner also claims reimbursement of Rs.19,50,500/- alongwith Rs.6,32,000/- 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, according to the petitioner, his wife was working as an Assistant Teacher. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (“AIIMS”), New Delhi. Some of the bills were submitted for medical reimbursement, which have been reimbursed. The details are as follow:- 2 (i) The bill amounting to Rs.70,000/- for treatment between 02.01.2017 and 10.03.2017. (ii) The bill amounting to Rs.10,72,758/- for treatment from 12.11.2013 to 04.08.2015 and from 12.09.2015 to 21.07.2016. 4. There were two more medical reimbursement bills of Rs.19,50,500/- and Rs.6,32,000/- which have not been reimbursed by the respondents authorities and the petitioner was required to remove the defects in terms of filing essentiality certificate. The petitioner seeks quashing of those communications and claims the amount of medical reimbursement. 5. The respondent no.2 filed a counter affidavit and in para 7, it is stated “that in the instant case the medical reimbursement claims amounting to Rs.19,50,500/- and 6,32,000/- has been examined and counter signed by the Directorate and payment is to be made by the department i.e. Education Department.” 6. The respondent no.1, the State of Uttarakhand has also filed its counter affidavit. According to it, since essentiality certificate has not been provided by the petitioner, his claim could not be processed. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, the respondent no.1, State of Uttarakhand has stated as below:- “10. That it is significant to mention here that vide Letter No.88 dated 30.12.2021 and Letter No. 32 dated 20.05.2022, the State Government remitted the matter in original with an objection, pursuant to which the concerned Deputy Education Officer has requested the petitioner to provide the Essentiality Certificate on prescribed format, which has yet not been provided by the petitioner due to which the final decision/approval on the medical reimbursement bills of the petitioner are pending disposal for which he himself is responsible. Thus, the present 3 writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. True/correct typed version/copies of the Letter dated 30.12.2021 and 20.05.2022 of the State Govt. Are collectively being annexed as Annexure No.-4 to this affidavit.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife of the petitioner has undergone treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi for breast cancer. Some of her medical bills have already been reimbursed. But, a bill of Rs.19,50,500/- has yet not been cleared. He would submit that, initially, when the petition was filed a bill amounting to Rs.6,32,000/- was also not cleared by the respondents. But, he would submit that now this amount has been reimbursed and it has been paid to the petitioner. It is argued that, in fact, based on the essentiality certificate, multiple bills for medical reimbursement submitted by the petitioner have been cleared by the respondents. But, final bill of Rs.19,50,500/- has not been paid. Therefore, impugned communications need to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay this amount to the petitioner. 8. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner was required to submit an essentiality certificate, which he has not submitted. As and when he submits this essentiality certificate, the medical reimbursement bill amounting to Rs.19,50,500/- shall be processed. 9. A few facts are not disputed. They are as follows:- (i) For the treatment of the wife of the petitioner, between 12.11.2013 and 04.08.2015 and from 12.09.2015 to 21.07.2015, a bill of Rs.10,72,758/- has been reimbursed to the petitioner by the respondents. 4 (ii) For the treatment of the wife of the petitioner between 02.01.2017 and 10.03.2017 reimbursement of Rs.70,000/- was done in the year 2018. (iii) It is also stated by the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of the petition, the medical bill for the treatment of the wife of the petitioner between 04.04.2018 and 15.06.2018, Rs.6,32,000/- has now been reimbursed to him. 10. The dispute is with regard to the bill amounting to Rs.19,50,500/- which is for the treatment of the wife of the petitioner between 31.03.2017 and 01.01.2018. 11. Admittedly, the bill subsequent to this duration has already been sanctioned. As also, the bills preceding to this duration has also been sanctioned. Therefore, the objections now with regard to the essentiality certificate has no basis. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned communications dated 20.09.2022 and 22.10.2022, this Court is of the view that the respondents may be directed to proceed with the medical reimbursement bills submitted by the petitioner without asking any other documents from him. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed and impugned communications set aside. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. Impugned communications dated 20.09.2022 and 22.10.2022 are set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to process the medical reimbursement bill of Rs.19,50,500/- without asking the petitioner to submit any essentiality certificate. The process should be completed within eight weeks from today. (Ravindra Maithani,) 24.06.2025 Jitendra