APHC010135102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7242/2025 Between: Kadali Krishna Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 W.P.No.7242 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- i) declaring the action of the respondents in general 5th respondent in particular in not reimbursing petitioner’s medical bills paid from his own pocket to a tune of Rs.63,449/- as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative besides violative of Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and ii) consequently, direct the respondents in general 5th respondent in particular to reimburse petitioners medical bills paid from his own pocket to a tune of Rs.63,449/- with 24 percent of interest per annum and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on 23.04.2008, having got selected through regular selection process. While on duty on 01.03.2011, he met with an accident, for which, he underwent treatment with 7th respondent-Hospital till 07.03.2011. He was on leave from 01.03.2011 to 22.05.2011. In that process, the petitioner stated to have incurred medical expenditure of about Rs.63,449/- (Rupees Sixty three thousand and four hundred forty nine). The petitioner has submitted medical bills for reimbursement to 6th respondent-MPDO-cum-Programme Officer, who in turn, forwarded the same to 5th respondent for sanctioning the medical reimbursement. The 5th respondent by letter vide Lr.No.E/10/EGS/ DWMA/2012, dated 11.05.2012, requested the 7th respondent to verify the genunity of bills submitted by the petitioner and to submit a 3 W.P.No.7242 of 2025 report on the same. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously in follow up with 5th and 6th respondents, for release of aforesaid amounts. He is due for superannuation on 31.03.2025, as the respondents have not settled the medical reimbursement, he is constrained to file present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has incurred medical expenditure during the period when he was on medical leave, from 01.03.2011 to 22.05.2011, and the said expenditure for an amount of Rs.63,449/- was claimed by way of reimbursement. Though the 5th respondent by letter dated 11.05.2012, called upon 7th respondent to verify the genunity of bills so claimed, there is no response thereafter. The petitioner has continuously followed up the matter with respondents, and as he was in service and in fear of employment security and guarantee, he did not take any action claiming aforesaid amounts. Since the petitioner is due for retirement soon, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain delay in approaching this Court by referring to paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the writ affidavit. 6. Perused the record. 4 W.P.No.7242 of 2025 7. Admittedly, the claim of petitioner relates to the period 01.03.2011 to 22.05.2011. He seems to have submitted medical bills for reimbursement. The 6th respondent has forwarded the same to 5th respondent by letter dated 09.04.2012. In turn, the 5th respondent called for report from 7th respondent regarding the genunity of bills. Though the matter lies there, the petitioner has not taken any steps, either to make representation to the respondents or avail appropriate remedies for recovering the said amounts. The reasons assigned in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 in approaching this Court at belated stage, except for stating that due to employment security and guarantee he could not institute writ petition, is completely unconvincing. The cause of action to agitate his rights arose well way back in the year 2012 itself, when the 5th respondent has not responded to the bills. Even thereafter, the petitioner neither submitted any representation nor claimed these amounts, he straightaway filed the present writ petition after nearly thirteen (13) years. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh1, held that belated service related claim will have to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when remedy sought to be enforced by filing a writ petition or on ground of limitation when remedy is sought to be enforced by approaching Administrative Tribunal. As in the present case, there is an inordinate delay, at no 1 (2008) 8 SCC 648 5 W.P.No.7242 of 2025 stretch of imagination the petitioner is entitled to invoke equitable jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Over and above, the petitioner kept silent for almost thirteen years in ascertaining his rights and seeking legal remedies. Such a long period of delay is uncondonable. The petitioner by not initiating appropriate legal action is, in a way, given up his claim, which clearly amounts to acquiescence. Since, there is a substantive delay this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 24.03.2025 KBN 6 W.P.No.7242 of 2025 96 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7242/2025 Date: 24.03.2025 KBN