IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6437 of 2010 Decided on: 13.12.2010 Sher Singh ……..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. ………Respondents. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G with, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the medical reimbursement bills of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 30,033.85 paise, as mentioned in Annexure P-1 immediately with interest at the rate of 9%.” 2. It appears that there is no serious dispute as to the entitlement of the petitioner. The problem is only with regard to the availability of the funds in that regard. It will be relevant to extract the stand as reflected at Para 4 of the reply, which reads as follows:- 2 “That in reply to this para, it is submitted that it is not correct that nothing was paid to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.10,700/- and an amount of Rs.30334/- is remaining to be paid. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.30,334/- is still due to be paid to the petitioner on account of non-availability of funds in the medical reimbursement head of account. It may be respectfully submitted that since the allotment of funds in the head of account of medical reimbursement is less that what is claimed by the employee, since 2006 and the amount of medical reimbursement has been disbursed to the employees equitably as and when the amount is received is without any discrimination. As and when the amount is allocated to this funds, the payment of medical reimbursement shall be paid at the first instance to the petitioner.” 3. Being an old matter, we are of the view that it will be only in the interest of justice that the petitioner’s claim is given priority at least during the first month of next financial year. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to settle and disburse the amount due to the petitioner on or before 30.4.2011. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent. 4. All the pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), December 13, 2010 Judge (tilak/pankaj)