IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5927 of 2007 SMT.LEELAVATI DEVI w/o Late Dr. Ramashish Upadhyay, resident of Durga Garage, New Area, Aurangabad. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 23.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief; “(i) For a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse payment of Medical Re-imbursement for treatment of late husband of the petitioner during the period January, 1999 to September, 1999 for Rs.1,62,683.50 P. which is the amount till unpaid out of the total Bills of Rs.4,00,836.32P; (ii) For a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse the amount of Medical Re-imbursement for Rs.1,18,103 for treatment of husband of the petitioner for the period 17.9.1999 to 16.12.1999. (iii) For a direction to the respondents to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,01,896/- of the Medical Expenses incurred during the period January, 2000 to June, 2000; and for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” this Court is of the opinion that if the respondents have rejected any part of the claim of the petitioner towards the expenditure in treatment of her deceased-husband, they were 2 required to spell out the reasons for such rejection and also communicate the same to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner in fact in this regard is more or less explained in paragraph 17 of the writ application which reads as follows;- “ 17. That the petitioner further humbly states and submits that as on date the status of the claim of the petitioner is as under:- Period Amount Claimed Amount Paid Balance Due 3.4.98 to 8.5.98 4,66,616.59 4,66,616.59 NIL Jan 99 to Sept 99 4,00,836.32 2,38,152.82 1,62,683.50 17.9.99 to 16.12.99 1,18,103.00 NIL 1,18,103.00 Jan.00 to June,00 5,17,962.21 2,16,066.00 3,01,896.21 Total due 5,82,682.71 As would be evident from the aforementioned chart, the petitioner therefore has a claim of a sum of Rs.5,82,682.71 paise which has been sought to be denied by the respondents on the plea of rules. Paragraph nos. 9 and 12 of the counter affidavit which dealt with the claim of the petitioner to be Rs.1,18,103/- and 3,01,896/- only take shelter of the rules but then neither the rules has been brought before this Court nor its extract has been mentioned in the counter affidavit. By now it is well settled that pleadings made in the writ application or the counter affidavit capable of being supported by documents, the 3 document concerned must be enclosed. Additionally, this Court would find that the respondents have denied further payment to the petitioner on the ground that husband of the petitioner was also treated in the outdoor of All India Institute of Medical Science. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the husband of the petitioner had undergone treated as an outdoor patient of All India Institute of Medical Science, the payment thereof may not be denied but counsel for the State would submit that at least there is no such averment of the petitioner having undergone treatment in the outdoor of All India Institute of Medical Science. The respondents therefore are directed to disclose the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner and while doing so they must once again reconsider their decision inasmuch as if the deceased husband of the petitioner was treated in the outdoor of All India Institute of Medical, his such payment of expenditure in his treatment probably cannot be denied in terms of Bihar Medical Attendant Rules. Thus, this writ application for the time is being disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner and in the event any of the claim of the petitioner as raised in her representation along with a copy of this order is 4 rejected, the respondents must give not only the reasons but also reference to the provision of rules on the basis of which such rejection is made. Let it be made clear that this is second order of remand by this Court and therefore respondents should ensure that the order which is passed is not only reasoned but also final one. It goes without saying that if the petitioner would still be aggrieved by the order of the respondent; she will be at liberty to move this Court in a fresh proceeding. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)