1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3488/07 Sanwal Ram Verma vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 8/4/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanwal Ram Verma-petitioner in person. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard the petitioner in person and the learned Additional Government Counsel. This is second round of litigation for petitioner. Earlier also he filed the writ petition against the respondents with the prayer that they be directed to reimburse the medical bills for the medicines known as Sorbiline and Syrup M-2 Ton which are reimbursable as per the Medical Attendants Rules, 1986. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 19.5.06 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and direction to the respondents to decide the same. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner therefore again approached this Court. Petitioner has submitted that when the 2 bills for reimbursement of the same medicines were submitted by the headmaster of the school in which he was working, it was reimbursed but when the petitioner raised the bills, it was refused. It was a case of clear discrimination and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner referred to the list of reimbursable medicines in which Syrup M-2 Ton is included at item no.47 and also Sorbiline was included. The total amount that is claimed by the petitioner is only Rs.191.85 paise. The petitioner however submits that he is only contesting the matter for getting justice regardless of the small amount. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that the medicines in question are not reimbursable and even if it was wrongly reimbursed in the case of another government servant, that would not be a reason for reimbursing the same to the petitioner. The writ petition be therefore dismissed. Having heard the petitioner as well as 3 the learned Additional Government, I find that in para 3 of the reply, the respondents have stated that the medical bills submitted by the petitioner was recommended for being reimbursed but in the rules it was found that the medicines in questions are not reimbursable therefore it was not paid. It is submitted that earlier also the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for payment of his retiral benefits and in compliance of its order all other benefits of the petitioner have been paid. The petitioner in his representation made to the respondents on 30.6.2006 has categorically named Shri R.D. Gupta, Headmaster of the School and has asserted that reimbursement of same medicines was made to him by District Education Officer. The respondents have specifically not denied that issue. Even otherwise, the list of reimbursable medicines which have been produced by the petitioner does show that Syrup M-2 Ton appeared at item no.47. In so far as Sorbiline is concerned it was originally included but it was later appears to be 4 deducted from notification dated 17.10.70. but if the respondents have reimbursed the payment of this medicine to R.D. Gupta, Headmaster. There was no reason for them to give any different treatment in the case of the petitioner. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the claim of the amount and in view of the discussion made above, this writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.500/- in full and final settlement of his dues, which would include reimbursable amount as also the element of interest keeping in view the bill was submitted by the petitioner in 1987 and payment shall be made to him within three months. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the petitioner for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/