IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15216 of 2008 Between: Ajaz Ahmed, Manager (Engg.) & Commissioner, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.( APIIC), Electronic Complex, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner & Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Tank Bund, Near Liberty Junction, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in denying payment of the amounts to which the petitioner is entitled to as per the APIIC rules as arbitrary, illegal and void and consequently direct the respondent for arranging payment of the amounts / benefits to the petitioner following the APIIC rules. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.MALOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR. R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15216 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard both sides. It is the case of the petitioner, who is working as Manager (Engineering) and Commissioner in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short ‘the A.P.I.I.C.’) at Hyderabad, that, earlier, he was deputed to work in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short ‘the M.C.H.’) from 10.06.2003 to 17.05.2007, and that during the said period, he had undergone treatment for PTCA + Stent to OM2 at Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, from 06.01.2007 to 08.01.2007 and incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,98,832/- towards medical expenses. When he requested the authorities of M.C.H., vide his letter dated 16.01.2007, duly enclosing the relevant bills along with the discharge summary, for reimbursement of the said amount, they have forwarded the said bills to A.P.I.I.C. for taking necessary action in the matter. Thereupon, the A.P.I.I.C. considered his claim and sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him and requested the M.C.H., vide letter dated 24.04.2007, to pay the said amount to him, as he was working with the M.C.H. on deputation. But however, the M.C.H. has sanctioned only an amount of Rs.90,000/-, vide proceedings dated 07.07.2007, in spite of sanction of Rs.1,70,000/- by the A.P.I.I.C. When the petitioner requested for sanction of the remaining amount, he was informed to claim the said amount from his parent department i.e. the A.P.I.I.C. Accordingly, he approached the A.P.I.I.C., which in turn requested the M.C.H. for sanction of the remaining amount, but the said request was rejected by the M.C.H. stating that Government employees are sanctioned medical reimbursements depending on the scrutiny report of the Director of Medical Education, Government of A.P. The petitioner contends that since he is an employee of the A.P.I.I.C. and is working with the M.C.H. only on deputation, he is governed by the Rules and Regulations of A.P.I.I.C., but not the rules applicable to Government employees and, therefore, the action of the M.C.H. authorities in sanctioning the amount as per the eligibility of the Government employees is arbitrary and illegal. He further contends that certain other beneﬁts are also yet to be paid to him for the period he worked with the M.C.H. In this regard, a representation, dated 05.06.2008, is stated to have been submitted by him to the respondent–Commissioner & Special Oﬃcer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, ventilating all his grievances, and the same is still pending consideration. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondent is directed to consider the representation, dated 05.06.2008, purported to have been submitted by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th October, 2008 IBL