Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 125408 (ALL)

ALOK KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY./PRIN. SECY. MINING AND MINERAL DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 ORS.

WRIA/2298/2025 · 2025-02-28

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12209 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2298 of 2025 Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Mining And Mineral Deptt. Lko. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Sahayak Vedhan Abhiyanta in the Minor and Mineral Department and superannuated on 28.02.2015. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was suffering from various ailments including heart, kidney, blood pressure, diabetes etc and had also undergone surgery in 2022 and also underwent kidney treatment from 01.07.2023 to 05.01.2025. During the period of his treatment petitioner continuously submitted his medical reimbursement claims and certain claims have already been approved and payments made, but the medical claim submitted on 05.10.2023, 23.11.2023, 15.12.2023, 27.03.2024, 27.05.2024, 27.08.2024, 16.10.2024 and 15.01.2025 are pending with the respondents, for an amount of Rs.300922/-. 3. It is next submitted that according to the Government Order dated 27.08.2024, time line has been fixed for deciding medical reimbursement claims and accordingly, submits that his claims have to be considered within a period of sixty days and despite expiry of said period, the respondents have not decided the claim of the petitioner. 4. After arguing the matter up to some length, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that grievance of petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondent no. 2 - Director, Mining and Mineral Directorate, U.P. Lucknow to consider and decide petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2025, annexed as Annexure - 9 to the writ petition, expeditiously. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case suitable directions are issued to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide petitioner's representation. 6. In the light of above, present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 - Director, Mining and Mineral Directorate, U.P. Lucknow to consider and decide petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2025, annexed as Annexure - 9 to the writ petition, expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, by means of reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench