1 2025:CGHC:22226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.3818 of 2025 Komal Das Ghritesh S/o Late Shri J.D. Ghritesh Aged About 68 Years R/o Ward No.-07, Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Dist. - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Director, Directorate Of Medical Education, North Block, Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, Second Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur(C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Department Of Registration And Superintendent Of Stamps, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - District Registrar Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.05.21 16:53:22 +0530 2 5 - Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Baloda Bazar, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Manish Kumar Saluja, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 20.05.2025 1. This Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents to consider and decide the representation of the Petitioner (Annexure P/1) and approve the medical reimbursement bills and make payment in the stipulated time period. 10.2 Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case as reflected from the pleadings are that the daughter of the Petitioner namely Sarita Devi was married to Chandraprakash Ongre and was working as Deputy Registrar in the Department of Registration and Stamps, Simga, Baloda Bazar and both of them have died in the year 2021 on account of Covid pandemic leaving behind 3 minor children of whom, the Petitioner herein was appointed as a guardian. The Petitioner has filed a representation before Respondent No.4 for medical reimbursement 3 of the bills pertaining to the expenses incurred in the treatment of his daughter and son-in-law, which is still pending. 3. Shri Saluja submits that the Petitioner being the maternal grand father of the minor children is having the responsibility to raise them up for which, the above stated reliefs have been claimed. He further submits that a huge amount was spent in the treatment of the daughter and son-in-law of the Petitioner and for reimbursement of the same in favour of the minor children, the Petitioner has made several representations before the concerned Respondents but they have not taken any decision till date and for such limited purpose, the present Petition has been filed. He further submits that the son-in-law of the Petitioner was also in Government employment, therefore, in all fairness, the said representations ought to have been considered and prays that this Petition may be disposed of while issuing a direction to the concerned Respondents to either decide the pending representations or permit the Petitioner to file a fresh representation with regard to the grievances raised in the Petition to be decided in accordance with law by the concerned Respondents. 4. Shri Singh has not opposed the submissions made by Shri Saluja. 4 5. Having considered the submissions made by either parties and having gone through the record, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Petition and accordingly it is directed that the Petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authority i.e. Respondent No.2 ventilating his grievances within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn, the said Respondent shall decide the same within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of such representation in accordance with law. It is further directed that if the grievance of the Petitioner still subsists, he would be at further liberty to seek any remedy available to him under the law. 6. It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned authority is directed to decide the said representation on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the instant Petition stands disposed of. 8. Consequently, all the pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Priya