IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 9883 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.3.2011. Parmod Chander Sharma and Ors …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The petitioners are legal representatives of original petitioner, Smt. Veena Sharma and petitioner in this judgment refers to Smt. Veena Sharma. This petition has been filed for declaring that deduction of Rs.82,969/- made from the medical claim of the petitioner is illegal, null and void and contrary to instructions and rules, with a further direction to the respondents to pay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 3.9.2002 till actual payment. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner had worked as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Addl. Excise & Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Taxation Commissioner, South Zone, Shimla-3. She developed Rheumatoid Arthritis. She was treated at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (IGMC). She was referred to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh (PGI) and was treated there. She was advised by doctor at PGI for total knee replacement. The respondents had sanctioned Rs.1,50,000/- an advance for treatment, which was disbursed to petitioner in April, 2002. The petitioner remained under treatment from 14.4.2002 to 17.6.2002 and thereafter medical charges reimbursement claim was submitted by her on 2.7.2002 for an amount of Rs.2,41,996/-. After deducting the amount received in advance, net amount payable was claimed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.91,996/-. The respondent No.3 had only sanctioned an amount of Rs.9,015/- in addition to the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and therefore, an amount of Rs.82,969/- was remained payable to the petitioner. The petitioner had claimed this amount of Rs.82,969/- through this petition. 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 have contested the petition by filing reply. It has been stated that due and admissible medical claim after deduction of Rs.82,969/- out of total medical reimbursement charges i.e. Rs.2,41,996/- as claimed by the petitioner for knee replacement had already been paid to petitioner as per rules. It has been stated that petitioner was not entitled to any further amount on account of medical reimbursement. The petitioner died during the …3… pendency of the petition and her legal representatives were brought on record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. The respondents have taken specific stand in the reply that as per Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 the petitioner was not entitled to any further amount and whatever amount permissible under the rules has already been paid to the petitioner. From the record and rules it has not been shown how petitioner and after her death her legal representatives are entitled to medical reimbursement as claimed in the petition more particularly, when the respondents have taken specific stand that due and admissible amount of medical reimbursement amount had already been paid to the petitioner during her life time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that for bone cement the petitioner was entitled to Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.3300/- paid by the respondents. The perusal of Annexure A-1 Medical Charges Reimbursement Form indicates that the petitioner herself had claimed Rs.3300/- for bone cement and this amount was paid to her. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. March 10, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge.