IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4902 of 2002 KUMOD DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 16.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is the widow of one Late Pran Mohan Singh seeking relief of medical expenditure incurred in the treatment of her husband during his life time and after his superannuation till his death. The husband of the petitioner is stated to have been suffering from serious ailment of Kidney and required specialized treatment in the various places of Bihar as also IGIMS Patna and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. He retired from the post of Senior Selection Grade Assistant at Banka Collectorate. The claim can broadly be divided into two category viz; (i) all the expenditures incurred while the deceased was in service; and (ii) that incurred after his superannuation on 30.10.1996 when he is stated to have been deceased on 2.1.1998. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State. It seeks to assert that the reimbursement can be granted only in accordance with the Rules. The writ application was filed in the year 2002. Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ application are the claim and representations submitted by the petitioner. It contains no enclosures or details of the claims but is very generalised in nature. This Court considers it difficult to grant any positive relief to the petitioner for reasons of lack of materials before the Court. The question of applicability of the Rules would necessarily depend thereafter. This Court, therefore, considers it proper to dispose off this writ application with the observation that if the petitioner has already submitted a detailed representation with all supporting documents in the manner prescribed under the Rules or if the petitioner has not done so, hereafter files application in accordance with the Rules, the concerned respondents shall examine the claim and any legitimate dues payable shall be paid within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order for the periods in question. If the concerned respondents were of the opinion that any of the claims cannot be allowed, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed in respect thereof supported by quotation of the relevant Rules. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Banka. It states that respondent no. 3 the Secretary, Board of Revenue (Administrative Department) Bihar, Patna was the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner. The words “concerned respondents” referred to above, shall therefore mean respondent no. 3. It shall not be open for respondent no. 3 to question the issue and if that is done that shall be at the risk of a false affidavit of the present counter affidavit. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)