S. Talapatra, J. - (1.)Heard the petitioner in person as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. for the respondents No. 1 and 3 and Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Despite due notice from this court, none appears for the respondent No.4.
(2.)In terms of the revised policy, the respondent No.4 had sent for opinion in respect of the medical reimbursement of the retired Judicial Officer, the petitioner, to the competent authority. The petitioner has retired as the District and Sessions Judge. When he suddenly fell ill at Hyderabad, he was compelled to take medical assistance there to save life. After returning from the said place, the petitioner raised the medical reimbursement bills for an amount of Rs.34,634.00. The said bill was processed to the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Law Department by the Head of Office, District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala but while processing the said bill, the amount of the bill has been quoted as Rs.22,248.00 and 1,450/-. According to the petitioner, the said amount has been wrongly quoted by the Head of office of the District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. In the said letter dtd. 25/3/2017 (Annexure-R1 to the reply filed by the respondent No.2), the Head of Office has observed that he sought for opinion whether the reimbursement could be made as the case was not referred by the Standing Medical Board of the state. From the reply filed by the respondent No. 1 and 3, it appears that in response to the said query, the Law Department by their letter 19/3/2018 (Annexure-R1 to the reply filed by the respondents No 1 and 3) had clarified that the Finance Department regretted the payment of the two reimbursement bills amounting to Rs.22,248.00 and Rs.1,450.00 as submitted by the petitioner.
(3.)Mr. Dasgupta, the petitioner in person has further submitted that he is entitled to reimbursement of the said bills. Moreover, no reason has been assigned by the Finance Department in the said communication or otherwise why the said bills were not fit for reimbursement. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to get the medical reimbursement. Subsequently by the letter dtd. 2/5/2019 (Annexure-R2 to the reply filed by the respondents No 1 and 3), it has been apprised that the Finance Department has concurred the proposal for reimbursement of the medical bill amounting to Rs.22,248.00 but denied the sum of Rs.1,450.00.
;