In a compassionate and legally significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has come to the aid of a widow who was denied reimbursement of her late husband’s medical bills due to a technical delay in submission. The case, WRIT – A No. – 122 of 2025, was decided by Justice Ajit Kumar on March 17, 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Maimuna Begum, approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection of her medical reimbursement claim by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raebareilly. The reimbursement was denied solely on the ground that the bills were submitted beyond the 90-day period as prescribed under departmental rules.
Her counsel, Advocates Kalendra Prasad and Dharmendra Kumar, argued that the delay was not intentional. Rather, it occurred due to the emotional trauma and shock suffered by the widow following the demise of her husband during treatment. They submitted that the government authorities should have taken a humane and pragmatic view instead of sticking to rigid technicalities.
The State of U.P. and five other respondents, represented by Chief Standing Counsel, justified their decision citing the strict 90-day deadline for submission under applicable rules.
Legal Issues Involved
- Whether the 90-day limitation period for submitting medical reimbursement claims is mandatory or directory in nature, especially in cases involving death of the employee.
- Whether delay due to bereavement and emotional distress of legal heirs can be a valid ground for condonation of delay in such welfare-oriented claims.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Ajit Kumar held that “if an employee has died during treatment, his wife/heirs should not be harassed for technical reasons.” He emphasized that although rules are framed to maintain administrative discipline, their enforcement should not come at the cost of equity, fairness, and compassion, especially when genuine claims are involved.
The Court observed:
“Such a rule that prescribes for submitting medical bills for reimbursement may at times be put to strict compliance where employee is alive, but in case of heirs where employee has died during treatment, such rules should not be permitted to come in the way of reimbursement of genuine claims.”
It further stated:
“No provision is placed before this Court that claims for reimbursement after 90 days shall be liable to be rejected compulsorily.”
Calling such rules directory in nature, the Court declared that law of limitation should not be applied rigidly in welfare claims of widows or legal heirs, especially when no fraudulent intent is involved.
The Court directed Smt. Maimuna Begum to resubmit her medical bills before the Executive Engineer, PWD, Raebareilly within four weeks. Upon submission, the officer is required to decide and process the claim within two weeks in accordance with the rules, without raising the issue of delay again.
The petition was accordingly disposed of with a strong message in favour of justice over procedural technicalities.
