IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21571 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.V.RAJU, LINEMAN, GRADE-1, ELECTICAL SECTION OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN SRI.B.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUD BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),KSE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KATTAPPANA. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. STANDING COUNSEL MR.K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of July 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Lineman, Grade I under the respondent Board. According to the petitioner, in respect of treatment undergone by him during August and September, 2005, he preferred a claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses. It is stated that the orders have not been passed and the amount has not been reimbursed so far. It is with this grievance, writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Standing Counsel who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that the claim was received in the office of the 4th respondent in January, 2006. It is stated that since the claim was misplaced in that office, it was not processed. According to him it was traced on W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2010 -: 2 :- January, 2009 and that thereupon the claim was submitted to the 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent returned the claim to the 4th respondent on the ground that the claim was belated. It is stated that it was therefore that final orders were not passed. 3. Obviously, the delay, if any, in submitting the claim to the 3rd respondent could not have been attributable to the petitioner because the papers were misplaced in the office of the 4th respondent. Therefore, delay cannot be a reason to decline reimbursement. 4. The learned Standing Counsel submits that it is the 2nd respondent who is to consider the claim of the petitioner. Having regard to the above, I direct the 4th respondent before whom the matter is pending to place it before the 3rd respondent, who shall within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment submit the claim to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent shall, within 2 weeks from the receipt of the same in his office, forward medical claim of the petitioner to the 2nd W.P.(C) No.21571 of 2010 -: 3 :- respondent who shall immediately decide on the claim particularly having regard to the fact that the claim relates to the year 2005-2006. 5. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of the judgment to the 3rd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt