Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1266/2025 of HARISH CHANDRA PAPANAI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 16 May 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 66 WPMS No.1266 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 66
WPMS No.1266 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. It is the claim of the petitioner that his father retired from the position of the Principal in a Government Junior High School in the year 2006. He was regularly making monthly contribution in the State Government Health Scheme. Suddenly, he died in the year 2022, due to cardiac arrest. The petitioner claims medical reimbursement, which is approved, but the department is not giving the amount on the ground that the petitioner has to place succession certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3/The Deputy Education Officer (Basic), Salt, District Almora, is not giving any intimation as to for which amount the succession certificate is required. Therefore, he seeks directions from this Court. Learned State Counsel was required to get instructions in the matter. At the very outset, today, learned State Counsel would submit that the medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 1,61,533/-, has been approved for late father of the petitioner, which means, if any succession certificate was required, that was required for this amount only. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned State Counsel. In view of what is stated by learned State Counsel, nothing survives in this petition. It stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani J.)
16.05.2025 RV