IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 14857 of 2000(R) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.C. ANTONY, STENO GRADE-II, HUDCO REGIONAL OFFICE, KSHP COMMERCIAL-CUM-RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, IST FLOOR, PATTOM JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM -4. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HRD), HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPN., LTD., INDIAN HABITAT CENTRE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2. THE CHIEF FINANCE (INTERNAL AUDIT), HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD., INDIAN HABITAT CENTRE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 3. THE REGIONAL CHIEF, HUDCO REGIONAL OFFICE, KSHF, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - 4. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE KURIAN, ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP, ADV. SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 24107/2000 IN O.P. NO. 14857/2000-P DISMISSED 06/03/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 23/2000 DTD. 06/01/2000. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DTD. 17/01/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F.3. (348)/90/HRD DTD. 27/04/2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.No.14857 of 2000-R. ========================= Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext.P3 by which the respondents rejected the claims preferred by the petitioner for medical reimbursement of Rs.12,362/-. 2. The petitioner was working as Stenographer Gr.II under the 3rd respondent Regional Chief at Thiruvananthapuram. The relevant period is from 7.10.1997 to 2.7.1998 and the claim is for medical reimbursement for the treatment taken for his mother and son. An amount of Rs.12,534.69 was disbursed to him after a proper scrutiny by the concerned authorities. Much later he was issued with Ext.P1 informing him that the said amount is being recovered, being unauthorised medical claims. Noticeably Ext.P1 gives no details of it. The petitioner represented against it by Ext.P2 and the same stand rejected by Ext.P3. OP.No.14857/2000-R. -: 2 :- 3. Two reasons have been stated in Ext.P3 mainly to reject his claim. The first one is that in the light of the joint declaration submitted by the petitioner and his wife, the petitioner cannot claim any medical facility from HUDCO for self/dependents. It is also stated that his wife had made a claim for her dependent members for the treatment taken from 11.8.1997 to 6.10.1997. Lastly it is pointed out that the petitioner has been changing dependents list very often with a view to take undue advantage from the employer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the approach made in Ext.P3 is totally incorrect and against the true facts. He referred to the statements made in Ext.P2 representation to sustain his point. It is pointed out that the joint declaration was changed only on 7.10.1997 and till then his wife was entitled to claim for her dependent members. It is also submitted that as per the declaration dated 7.10.1997 the petitioner is entitled to make the claim for his dependents etc. But it is seen from Ext.P3 that the above aspects have not been considered while OP.No.14857/2000-R. -: 3 :- rejecting the representation. 5. It is pointed out that the petitioner’s wife claimed the medical reimbursement from 11.8.1997 to 6.10.1997 for herself and her father. But the petitioner’s claim was only from 7.10.1997 based on the revised joint declaration dated 7.10.1997, duly accepted by the competent authority on 12.10.1997. It is also pointed out that the finding that the petitioner has been changing the dependents list very often is also not correct. It is pointed that on 6.6.1997 a declaration of dependents for the year 1997 was submitted and this is followed by a joint declaration as per the rules on 11.8.1997. Subsequently a revised joint declaration was submitted on 7.10.1997 in response to the letter dated 1/4.9.97 of the respondents. 6. I find that these aspects have not been considered while rejecting the representation as per Ext.P3. These vital aspects should have been considered by the competent authority. Therefore I quash Ext.P3 and direct the competent among the respondents to reconsider the matter on merits and with reference OP.No.14857/2000-R. -: 4 :- to the points noted above and raised in Ext.P2 representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order passed by this Court in CMP.No.24107/2000 dated 30.5.2000 will continue to be in force till an order is passed and communicated to the petitioner. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-