Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARAT KUMAR SAHAI versus UNION OF INDIA THRU' SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAY AND OTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bharat Kumar Sahai v. Union Of India Thru' Secretary Ministry Of Railway And Other - WRIT - A No. 22819 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10116 (25 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved on 14.05.2007

Delivered on 25.05.2007

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22819 of 2007

Bharat Kumar Sahai

Vs.

Union of India and others

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated  8.2.2007 passed by  Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (in short 'Tribunal') rejecting the petitioner's Original Application No. 879 of 2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his claim for medical reimbursement is for Rs. 1,14,357/- but he was paid only Rs. 60,000/- towards cost of pace maker and Rs. 8,972/- towards cost of medicine and investigations etc. and rest of the amount has been denied illegally for which he filed the aforesaid original application which has been rejected by the Tribunal erroneously.

From the record it does appear that the petitioner got settlement of medical reimbursement for payment of Rs. 68,000/- and odd by giving an undertaking. This is evident from para 7 of his representation dated 10.9.2003 which is reproduced as under:-

"7. On expiry of 8 months of the submission of the reimbursement application, CMS/DLW Hospital told that it would be possible to reimburse Rs. 60,000/- towards pace-maker. This amount could be released if an undertaking is given by me not to claim the balance amount. I was in need of money, the undertaking was given."

The same thing has been reiterated by him in para 5 of his representation dated 10.6.2005 which is reproduced as under:-

"5. On laps of 8 months the undersigned was paid Rs. 68,972/- after giving an undertaking."

Once the petitioner has given undertaking to accept lesser amount, it is not open to him subsequently to retract and claim the balance amount for which he has already waived his right. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dt/-25.05.2007

Avy


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.