IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.3809/2011-D. Decided on: December 20,2011. Karam Chand Sama, son of late Sri Ram, Resident of Bharti Cottage, Below Kalra House, Chhota Shimla. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Chief Secretary, Shimla – 171 002. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Nirman Bhavan, Shimla – 171 002. 3. Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department through its Registrar, Nirman Bhavan, Shimla – 171 002. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rohroo Division, HPPWD. …….Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): The petitioner, who retired as Assistant Engineer from the Public Works Department, had filed the present writ petition claiming the following relief: “a. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to release the amount of Rs.33,538/- to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18%.” 2. The claim put up by the petitioner pertains to the reimbursement of the medical bills submitted by him in regard to the expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his wife. These bills pertain to the 2 period 2001 to 2008 and were submitted in the year 2009 only. The wife of the petitioner has since died. The objection taken by the respondents is that the bills were submitted by the petitioner after the expiry of the period prescribed in the Rules and that one bill was submitted after the death of his wife. The other objection is that the genuineness of the bills is also to be verified by the respondents. 3. In so far as the plea that the bills were submitted belatedly after the expiry of the prescribed period is concerned, it is no ground to reject the bills, particularly, when the wife of the petitioner is already dead and the expenses were allegedly incurred by the petitioner for the treatment of his wife. Therefore, the objection of delay stands condoned in the facts of the case and shall not be considered as a precedent and respondent No.4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the reimbursement of the medical bills, after verifying the genuineness of the bills submitted by the petitioner, of course, strictly in accordance with the Rules and entitlement of the petitioner. This shall be done by respondent No.4 within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the said respondent. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 20, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.