- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8564 RP No. 100065 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 100065 OF 2025 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LAW DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU …PETITIONER (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMANTH, HCGP) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O SANGAPPA UPANAL OCC RETIRED DIST JUDGE R/O KALPATARU BUILDING, KALYAN NAGAR DHARWAD DIST 2. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 3. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG DISTRICT-581 117 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20-04-2022 PASSED IN WP 101453/2022 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND MODIFY ACCORDING THE 3RD PARA OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8564 RP No. 100065 of 2025 THE ORDER DATED 20-04-2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief: “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Review the order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.101453/2022(GM-RES) by this Hon’ble Court and modify accordingly the 3rd para of the operative portion of the order dated 20.04.2022 in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. A review of the order dated 20.04.2022 in W.P.No.101453/2022 is sought for, firstly, on the ground that the husband of the petitioner therein being employed as a Public Prosecutor, the petitioner, the District Judge would be disentitled from claiming any reimbursement of medical expenses since the Public Prosecutor would be entitled to claim - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8564 RP No. 100065 of 2025 reimbursement and/or the like on account of him being a Government servant. 3. When the matter was taken up on 01.07.2025, learned HCGP was called upon to place on record any particular Rules, Regulations, Notifications or the like, which would disentitle such reimbursement as contended. Today, a memo dated 04.07.2025 has been filed, enclosing a letter dated 04.09.2021, whereunder the respondents informed the petitioner about the disentitlement. However, no particular Rules, Regulations or the like has been placed on record indicating the disentitlement as contended in the said letter. 4. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the said ground of review would not be available and the same would not form a basis for review of the opposite order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8564 RP No. 100065 of 2025 5. The second contention of learned HCGP is that there was no particular submission made by learned HCGP as observed in para 7 of the order dated 20.04.2022 that the Government is actively considering the proposal to make available a cashless scheme for the Officers of the Karnataka Judicial Services and very shortly there may be a circular issued in relation thereto. 6. Even if the said submissions were not to have been made, it would be for the Government to make available a cashless scheme for the officers of the Karnataka Judicial Services, so that they are not made to run from pillar to post to claim reimbursement of the amount spent for the treatment of medical ailments. In this particular case, the treatment having been availed in the year 2020, the petition came to be disposed of in the year 2022 and now a revision petition is being disposed of in the year 2025. It would be required for the State - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8564 RP No. 100065 of 2025 to act with alacrity the State has its own procedures to follow which takes considerable time which necessitates the Judicial Officer to many a times borrow money for the treatment by incurring interest. The best system that could be implemented is a cashless system as implemented by insurance companies which the State could very well emulate. 7. With the above observations, the review petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1