^jar a^ 'y l-IIGI-IGOURTliaEiCMMATinSGARH ATStt.ASRl.tR iDnflSIQNaEiyGH ^Q^M^-.^H@N'BLBi!^I^E@|i||N^ •;tibN'BLE:SHro-svism.'kuiyii^'siN|ii,|iil8fl|'SSIJR33 ADDellant Petitioner Respondehts WritADDealN0.21«of2010 DrVX.1VleKata,^ShnB.t..^)VleKia. aged aBOiuti^fyeare, F ^^^^^^^ Road, ;Polk% 1-ine, Rajgar^ Raigarh^G);- i: .;;:::'''.':1':'^ VERSUS ,..:.:;.:'.•,•: 4. State?oftQhMattisgaFh]through'tMe i SeCretary, HealthandFamily Welfare?E>epartment,D.K.S. Bliawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Direstor.Sainchanalaya.Chikjtsa s Shikslia, Qlct NursesiMostel, &KS. : j Bhawan Gampus, Riapur (CG) ^ ! 3. Givil SurgeQncumChiefHospital Syperinterident, KQI-fospital, Raigarh,^)isttRaig;arh(GG) Writ appeal under Secti©ris2fi1^0fiAhedGhtiattisciaFhHidhCourt (ftDDealtfliIDiwi^iolaIBencMlJtet.2006 ^l Present: Sh^P.S.^shy^learrre^eptinsetfcrffie^^ Shri KisMore?Bh9CluFi, l^rned Additional Aavoc C^nera^fbr fhfeState/;^^ ^ i S ! ^JUDGMEICT^:'.' .: .'~,'.;^^^^^ ,'..'^(19 ^yly,^11)y::;;;:::'!:,;';;,;,^ ^ .::;,;; ^,.:.l.i, The following jyc^ment pf the Courti was passedj^y Rajeev:Gupta,,C.J. .•,:,,.' ':jc;,':,,•. ;,^ ••:.: :','j ''/!i:};::.,;'.l:ni:;; LeameA counset ifbi-i tl-ie parties are heanl on ll.j^. No.01/2010, aoapplicationlprGOFHJonatipriofthedelaymffl writ^appeaL',^,.' .:,.':,;.. f' •1i..;.;.:,' • : ,:^.. , •. .l':.:'!'':;^i iBB'i ^M i t 'UL^ Jli ii.tHi :";I?1-'s •i &s . ^«'-s »?!B;g, ^-<"% 3'd . :S ,.]^g^' 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufRcient cause for the de!ay in filing the writ appeal. 3) i.A. No.01 of 2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 8 days in filing the writ appeai is hereby condoned. 4) Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counsel for the appeltant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant Dr V.K. Mehata, a retired Government servant has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 09-03-2010, passed in W.P.(S) No. 3810/2009. 6) The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 !t is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 02.02.09 passed by respondent No.1 and direct the respondent no.1 to reimburse the entire biils (Rs.17,18,587/-) towards medical treatment and travelling allowances for which the petitioner is entitled. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit." 7) The petitioner, thusin substance, was seeking quashing of the order dated 02-02-2009 and a further direction to respondent No.1 to reimburse entire medical and conveyance bills of the petitioner amounting to Rs.17,18,587/-. 8) The pgtitioner retired from Government service as Assistant Civil Surgeon on 28-02-2005. Thereafter, it appears that he was ^•^^ ^: ^sS':'}, rs, appointed on contract basis for a period of one year from 11-02-2006 to 10-02-2007. The medica! bills and conveyance biils, which are sought to be reimbursed, admittedly, are of the period after expiry of the contract period on 10-02-2007. 9) Shri P.S. Koshy, iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though the medical bills sought to be reimbursed are of the period after expiry of the contract appointment of the appellant, he in fact fell ill during the period of his contract appointment and as such the respondents are under obligation to reimburse the medicai bills and conveyance bills ofthe appellant. 10) Neither before the writ Court nor before us in this writ appeal; the appellant could point out any rules, regulation or any Government order entitling a retired Government servant for reimbursement ofthe medical expenses. 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned.counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 12) The intra Court appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarilyra^——c-j7——^ (I Sunil Kumar Sinha; K , ' Judge , . Sd/- ChiefJustici subbu