IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 532 of 2003 (S/B) Dr. Vinod Kumar Bahuguna, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Bahuguna, Posted as Medical Officer (Ayurvedic), Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Nainital …………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Secretariat, Dehradun 2. The Director General, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Uttarakhand, Dehradun 3. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4. The Director General, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow 5. The State of U.P. through Secretary, Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow. ………Respondents. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder, present for the State-respondents. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. (Oral-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay sanctioned amount of Rs.89,655/- towards the medical reimbursement. A further 2 Mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to pay remaining Rs.70,150/- also towards medical reimbursement. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Medical Officer (Ayurvedic), who had underwent Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner incurred an expenditure amounting Rs.1,50,805/-. He has further stated that the bills were submitted for reimbursement to the Government, but the same remain unpaid, hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 in 2004 it is admitted that Rs.89,655/- was sanctioned towards the bills submitted by the petitioner for reimbursement. 4. This Court vide its interim order dated 21.07.2005 and 10.11.2005 directed the respondents to pay the sanctioned amount of Rs.89,655/- regarding which there is already sanction from the Government to be paid to the petitioner. Now, during the pendency of this writ petition a compliance report has been given on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 by filing affidavit of Dr. Ram Teerth Pandey, stating that not only Rs.89,655/- has been paid to the petitioner vide order No.1986/XXVIII (1) 2005-06-writ-36/2003, dated 30th November 2005, but also remaining Rs.60,000/- which were found payable against the bills submitted by the petitioner, has been paid vide order No.11653- 55/budget 2005-06/lekha-I, dated 2nd December 2005. 3 5. In view of the above facts, this writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with the observation that it is left open to the respondents No. 1 & 5 to settle their dispute in respect of their inter se liability in the light of sub- section (4) of Section 42 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 14.09.2009 NS