Serial No. 14 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 986/2025 Syed Musadiq Hussain Qadri S/O: Syed Mohammad Sharief Qadri R/o Reyazat Tengh, Khanyar Srinagar …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of JandK Th. Secretary to Govt Planning Development and Monitoring Department ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Waseem Gul, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 19.05.2025 Oral 1. In this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Srinagar [“the Tribunal”] dated 3rd of October, 2024 passed in TA No. 7927/2020 titled “Syed Musadiq Hussain Qadri vs. State of J&K” to the extent that it denies the petitioner reasonable rate of interest on the amount directed to be paid to the petitioner on account of medical reimbursement. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner who had undergone treatment for primary infertility at Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Bandra Mumbai without the proper permission/sanction by the competent authority submitted his claim for reimbursement in terms of his application dated. 01.01.2009. The medical reimbursement claim preferred by the petitioner was not accepted. The issue was agitated by the petitioner in SWP No. 914/2010 wherein the petitioner, not only called in question the communication of Director General E&S dated 25th February, 2008 conveying the rejection of sanction for such treatment, but also claimed reimbursement of the medical claim under rules along with interest @ 12% per annum till final realization. The writ petition was disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st October, 2013. The impugned communication dated 25th February, 2008 and the decision of the Finance Department was quashed and a direction was issued to the respondent herein to consider and decide the medical reimbursement case of the petitioner in terms of Rule 6 of the J&K Civil Service (Medical Attendance-cum- Allowance) Rules, 1990. 3. In compliance to the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21st October, 2013, the case of the petitioner for medical reimbursement was again examined by the respondent and vide Govt. Order No. 82 PD of 2015 dated 23rd April, 2015, the same was rejected. 4. It is this Govt Order of 2015 which was called in question by the petitioner in TA No. 7927/2020 which the Tribunal has decided vide impugned judgment dated 3rd October, 2024. The Tribunal has allowed the TA of the petitioner and held him entitled to reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 3 Lacs approximately on account of medical expenses incurred by him in the treatment. The Tribunal, however, has not granted any interest on the aforesaid amount. This is how the petitioner is aggrieved and is before us in this petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner who has been held entitled to reimbursement of sum of Rs. 3 Lacs approximately on account of medical expenses incurred by him in the treatment at Mumbai was entitled to receive the said amount in the year 2009 itself. It is because of inaction on the part of the respondent to decide the matter in correct perspective, the reimbursement of medical claim was unnecessarily delayed. The petitioner had to come to the court twice, first in the year 2010 and, thereafter, through TA No. 7927/2020 (SWP No. 575/2016). It is only after agitating the matter before the Court and particularly in the second petition before the Tribunal, the matter came to be set at rest. The judgment was passed in favour of the petitioner and he was also held entitled to reimbursement of an amount of Rs. 3 Lacs but without any interest. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the sides and are of the considered opinion that the amount which was payable to the petitioner in the year 2009 has been kept withheld by the respondent without any good reason and, therefore, needs to be paid along with interest. The interest in this case would only be compensatory and not penal. 7. The Tribunal has not given any reasons for not adverting to the question of payment of interest, more particularly when it was specifically claimed by the petitioner. We could not find any reason in the impugned judgment which would justify declining the reasonable interest to the petitioner. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this petition and same is accordingly allowed. The judgment passed by the Tribunal, impugned in this petition, is modified to the extent that the amount of Rs. 3 Lacs as directed to be paid by the Tribunal to the petitioner shall be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f., 21st October, 2013, when the first SWP 91/2010 was disposed of and direction was issued to the respondent to pay the amount on account of medical reimbursement to the petitioner in terms of J&K Civil Service (Medical Attendance-cum-Allowance) Rules, 1990. 9. Let the amount of Rs. 3 lacs along with the interest as aforesaid be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondent. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 19.05.2025 “SHAHID” Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No