Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dharminder Sharma vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 7 May, 2018
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.060/00737/2015 & 29 Others
Chandigarh, this the 7th May, 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A)
...
(1) O.A.NO.060/00737/2015
Dharminder Sharma S/o Late Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma, A.O. (Retired),
Aged 48 years, R/o House No. 158, Sector 4, Panchkula.
.... Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare (Department of Health), Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. The Additional Director (HQ), The Central Govt. Health
Scheme (CGHS), Homeopathy Dispensary Campus, Sector 34,
Chandigarh.
3. The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Haryana, Lekha
Bhawan, Plot No. 4&5, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.
4. The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt.,
of Haryana Finance Department, Haryana Secretariat,
Chandigarh.
5. Senior Accounts Officer (Admn.II), (A&E), Haryana, Lekha
Bhawan, Plot No. 4&5, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.
..... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate
for Respondents No.1&2
Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate for Respondents
No.3&5.
Mr. Samarvir Singh, Advocate, for R.No.4)
(2) O.A. No.060/00376/2016
Swaran Kanta wife of Late Sh. Surinder Mohan Basin aged about
70 years r/o B-XXXIII-2307, Bhagwan Dass Colony, Neta Ji Nagar,
Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, Group B.
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
2
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of
Post, New Delhi.
2. Post Master General, Area-II, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala.
..... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate)
(3) O.A. No.060/00621/2016
Sudarshan Sharma wife of Late Sh. Kanti Prakash R/o B-V-385,
Kaushal Building, Chauri Sarak, Ludhiana (Group C).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of
Post, New Delhi.
2. Post Master General, Area-II, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Ludhiana Civil Division,
Ludhiana.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(4) O.A.NO.063/00295/2017
Padam Dev Sharma (Supdt. Retired) aged 63 years, resident of 41
Chhereda P.O. Mohal, Distt. Kullu (H.P)-175126 (Group „B‟).
... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue, South Block, New
Delhi-110001.
2. Chairperson Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry
of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue, South Block, New Delhi-
110001.
3. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), The Mall, Amritsar-
143001.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Ms. Nidhi Garg, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
3
(5) O.A. No.060/00513/2017
Yogendra Parshad S/o Sh. Indrasan Parshad, aged 62 years, Tech.
U/D SSE/C&W/JUC/Ferozepur (Retd.), Class-III Post (Group-C),
R/o H.No. R-159, Amrik Nagar near Thakural General Store,
Jallandhar.
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Head Quarter
Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway, Head
Quarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
4. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway,
Ferozepur Cantt.
5. The Senior Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway,
Jallandhar City.
6. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway,
Divisional Office, Ferozepur.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Lakhinder Bir Singh, Advocate)
(6) O.A. No.060/00587/2017
Avtar Singh Jassal son of Late Shri Bhajan Singh Jassal, aged 75
years, r/o 649-I, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana (Group-A).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Northern
Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi.
3. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Rail Coach Factory,
Kapurthala.
4. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway,
Ferozepur.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Lakhinder Bir Singh, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
4
(7) O.A. No.060/01270/2017
Suraj Parkash Dogra son of Late Sh. Ram Chand Dogra aged about
70 years, r/o 25/26, Block-B, Sunder Nagar, Near DRM Office,
Ambala Cantt. (Group-C).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of
Post, New Delhi.
2. Chief Postmaster General (Accounts), Haryana Circle,
Ambala.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(8) O.A. No.060/01380/2017
Gurdev Singh Azad S/o Sh. Phuman Singh (GROUP - B), Ex. Asstt.
Divisional Accounts Officer, aged 76 years R/o Mandir Street Azad
Nagar Firozpour (Punjab).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate for
Mr. Karnail Singh, Advocate)
Versus
1. General Manager, Northern Railways, Headquarter
Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway,
Northern Railway, Firozpur.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Lakhinder Bir Singh, Advocate)
(9) O.A. No.060/01469/2017
Surinder Chakarvarti aged 73 years, son of late Sh. Labh Singh,
resident of Village Majri & Post Office Sialba, Tehsil Kharar,
District-SAS Nagar, Mohali, Group C.
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
5
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Communication and Information
Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector - 17,
Chandigarh.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh
Division, Chandigarh-160017.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(10) O.A. No.060/01503/2017
Dev Raj Sohal Son of Shri Faquir Chand, aged 68 years, Income
Tax Officer, Group „B‟(Retired), resident of # 50-B, Rattan Nagar,
Tripuri Town, Patiala (Punjab).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate))
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue through Chairman, Central Board of Direct
Taxes, Room No. 460, 4th Floor, Samrat Hotel,
Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Aayakar
Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate)
(11) O.A. No.060/00054/2018
Des Raj son of Shri Nanak Chand, aged 64 years, Mail Overseer,
(Group „C‟), (Retired), resident of # 91, Sainik Vihar, Jandli, Ambala
City (Haryana).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, Department
of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Principal Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle,
Ambala Cantt-133001.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala Division,
Ambala-133001.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
6
(12) O.A. No.060/00066/2018
Madan Lal Kakkar son of Jattu Ram, age about 75 years, Post
Group "C" House No. 217, 8 Marla Colony, Patel Nagar, Hisar.
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. K.B. Sharma, proxy counsel for
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Post, New Delhi, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala Cantt.
3. Senior Superintendent Postal, General Post Office, Karnal.,
4. Senior Post Master, General Post Office, Karnal.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(13) O.A. No.060/00145/2018
Som Dutt Sharma son of Shri Devki Nandan Sharma, aged 74
years, Deputy Postmaster Group „B‟ (Retired), resident of # 19,
Indira Colony, Vikram Marg, Karnal (Haryana).
.... Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Principal Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle,
Ambala Cantt-133001.
3. Senior Postmaster, Karnal-132001.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(14) O.A. No.060/00158/2018
Kanwar Chattar Singh son of Sh. Hamir Chand aged about 62
years, r/o H.No. 55, Gali No. 19, New Pawan Nagar, Batala Road,
Amritsar (Group - D).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
7
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Communication and
I.T., Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Post Master General, Area-II, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Amritsar Division,
Amritsar.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(15) O.A. No.060/00249/2018
Smt. Prem Lata widow and legal heir of late Shri Nand Lal Mongia,
Income Tax Officer, Group „B‟(Retired), aged 67 years, resident of
2176, GAUNS Mohala, Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Punjab).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue through Chairman, Central Board of Direct
Taxes, Room No. 460, 4th Floor, Samrat Hotel,
Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate)
(16) O.A. No.060/00283/2018
Dass Ram Leal S/o Sh. Chanda Ram, aged 72 years, r/o VPO Bilga
District Jalandhar. Group "C".
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate proxy counsel for
Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Sector-17,
Chandigarh.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division,
Jalandhar (Punjab).
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
8
(17) O.A. No.060/00303/2018
Naresh Kumar Jain son of Shri Madan Lal, aged 71 years, Senior
Postmaster (Group „B‟- Retired) Resident of # 136, Ram Bagh Road,
Ferozepur Cantt (Punjab).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunications and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, 415, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka
Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17-E,
Chandigarh-160017.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ferozepur Division,
Ferozepur-152001.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(18) O.A. No.060/00305/2018
Harjinder Singh son of Shri Wazir Singh, aged 73 years, Public
Relations Officer - Group „C‟ (Retired), resident of # 42, Street No.
VII, Ferozepur Cantt (Punjab).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunications and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, 415, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka
Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17-E,
Chandigarh-160017.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ferozepur Division,
Ferozepur-152001.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(19) O.A. No.060/00353/2018
Mohan Lal Gupta S/o Late Sh. Ram Saroop, aged 66 years, Sub
Postmaster (Retired) House No. 60B, New Milap Nagar, Ambala
City, Group "C".
.... Applicant
060/00737/2015 etc
9
(Argued by : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and IT, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Postal Circle,
107, The Mall, Ambala Canttt.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, GPO
Building, Ambala Cantt.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(20) O.A. No.060/00354/2018
P.N. Behal S/o Late Shri Kala Ram Behal, aged 77 years, Ex-Postal
Assistant (Group-C), presently resident of H. No. 63/1003, Baldev
Nagar, Ambala City.
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Communications, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Postal Circle,
Ambala-133001.
3. Accounts Officer, ICO (SB), office of Chief Post
Master General, Haryana Postal Circle, Ambala-
133001.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(21) O.A. No.060/00355/2018
A.L. Anand S/o Late Shri Mora Mal Anand, aged 81 years, Ex-
Deputy Post Master (Group-B), presently resident of H. No. 602,
Inder Nagar, Ambala City.
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Communications, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Postal Circle,
Mall, Ambala-133001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala Division,
Ambala-133001.
... Respondents
(Argued by: Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
060/00737/2015 etc
10
(22) O.A. No.060/00358/2018
Harbir Singh son of Shri Bishan Singh, aged 72 years, Income Tax
Officer (Group „B‟- Retired), resident of # 189-A, Hari Nagar,
Hoshiarpur (Punjab).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue through Chairman, Central Board of
Direct Taxes, Room No. 460, 4th Floor, Samrat
Hotel, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Jalandhar.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate)
(23) O.A. No.060/00359/2018
Manohar Lal Bansal son of Shri Kishori Lal, aged 76 years,
Postmaster (Group „B‟- Retired), resident of # 6363, Purana Thana
Road, Bathinda - 151001 (Punjab).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunications and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, 415, Sanchar Bhawan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bathinda Division,
Bathinda-151005.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(24) O.A. No.060/00383/2018
Smt. Satya Devi, aged 70 years, widow and legal heir of late Shri
O.P. Chawla, Postmaster (Group "C"), retired resident of House No.
33, Upkar Colony, Karnal-132001 (Haryana).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
060/00737/2015 etc
11
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunications and Information
Technology, Department of Posts, 415,
Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Principal Chief Postmaster General, Haryana
Circle, Ambala Cantt-133001.
3. Superintendent Post Offices, Bhiwani Division,
Bhiwani - 127021 (Haryana).
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(25) O.A. No.060/00387/2018
Smt. Sheela aged 70 years, widow and legal heir of late Shri D.P.
Singh Rana, Senior Postmaster, Group „B‟(Retired), resident of #
1963, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal-132001 (Haryana).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunications and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, 415, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Principal Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle,
Ambala Cantt.
3. Senior Postmaster, Head Office, Rohtak - 124001 (Haryana).
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(26) O.A. No.060/00392/2018
Harbans Lal S/o Charan Dass, aged 61 years, Retired Mail
Overseer (Group "C"), Village Kheri, P.O., Barwa, via Nurpur Bedi,
District Ropar-140117, Punjab.
.... Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Communications & Information Technology,
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
060/00737/2015 etc
12
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh-160017.
3. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Ropar Sub Division,
Ropar-140001.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(27) O.A. No.060/00402/2018
Amrit Lal Chadha S/o Sh. Ram Lal Chadha, aged 88 years r/o
House No. 143, Sector-12/A, Panchkula. (Group "B")
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate proxy counsel for
Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information
Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Sector-17,
Chandigarh.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur
(Punjab).
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(28) O.A. No.060/00405/2018
Suraj Parkash Malik son of Late Shri Thane Ram Malik r/o House
No. A-474, Sadar Majar, Karnal, Group B, Aged 63 years.
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mrs. Simar Preet Kaur, Advocate)
Versus
1. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Room No. 348, A-Wing,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. Controlling of Defence Account, through Senior Accounts
Officer, Ayudh Path Meerut Cantt (U.P)
3. Accountant Head, Defence Pension Disbursing Authority
Office, Karnal.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(29) O.A. No.060/00416/2018
Krishan Lal Bhatia son of Late Sh. Banarsi Dass, aged about 69
years r/o 587, Gali No. 3, Preet Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar-
143001 (Group-C).
.... Applicant
060/00737/2015 etc
13
(Argued by : Mr. Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Communications and I.T. Department of
Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Post Master General, Area-II, Sector - 17, Chandigarh.
3. Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Amritsar Division, Amritsar.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
(30) O.A. No.060/00479/2018
Smt. Asha Julka, aged 74 years, wife of late Shri Tilak Raj Julka,
Draftsman - Group „C‟ (Retired), resident of # 209, Sector 8,
Panchkula (Haryana).
.... Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South
Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Joint Controller of Defence Accounts (Air Force),
Vayusena Nagar, Nagpur-440007.
3. Air Officer Commanding, Civil Administration Department, 3
BRD Air Force, Sector 47, Chandigarh.
... Respondents
(Argued by : Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate)
ORDER (ORAL)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J):-
1. As identical questions of law and facts are involved, so we propose to dispose of, all the above captioned Original Applications (OAs), by means of this common decision, in order to avoid repetition of facts, and as so acknowledged by learned counsel for the parties as well. However, the facts have been extracted from the main case i.e. O.A.No. 060/00737/2015 titled Dharminder Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others, for convenience, ready reference and facilitation.
060/00737/2015 etc 14
2. The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant OAs and exposited from the record, is that Late Tilak Raj Sharma, father of the applicant, retired from the service as Accounts Officer, from the office of Principal Accountant General (A&E), (respondent no.3) on 31.10.1986. After retirement, he was settled in a non-Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), area. His wife had expired on 15.12.2010, as per Death Certificate dated 20.1.2011 (Annexure A-4). During the course of his service, the father of the applicant was getting Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA), in lieu of medical facilities, under Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as "CS (MA) Rules, 1944"). Father of the applicant was stated to have felt breathlessness and was immediately removed to Alchemist Hospital, in a critical condition, for effective and better treatment. He was diagnosed to be suffering from disease of "lungs/bronchial tubes". He remained admitted in Alchemist Hospital from 23.4.2014 to 27.5.2014 and ultimately he breathed his last (expired) on 27.5.2014.
3. The case set up by the applicant, in brief, in so far as relevant is, that he submitted the medical claim for a sum of Rs.10,31,278/- vide letter dated 12.8.2014 (Annexure A-5), pertaining to his late father for reimbursement but the same was rejected, on the ground that retired officers/officials are not governed by CS (MA) Rules, 1944 , and hence not entitled to medical reimbursement, vide impugned order dated 26/27.8.2014 (Annexure A-1), by the competent authority.
060/00737/2015 etc 15
4. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed the instant O.A, challenging the impugned order / action of the respondents, on the following grounds :-
"(a) That the respondents were liable to suo moto grant the benefit of judgment in case of a similarly situated Divisional Accountant in case titled "Kundan Singh Versus Union of India & Others" bearing O.A.No. 962-CH-2009 decided on 11.03.2011, which was allowed with a direction to respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by him despite not being member of CGHS. Present reimbursement is in similar circumstances and as such is liable to be granted.
(b) That of their own conduct the respondents are liable to grant interest @12% per annum to applicant since the amount spent at Alchemist Hospital was huge and he had to borrow money from his near and dear ones and due to delay and laxity on their part, they have been in use of the amount, which was to be reimbursed.
© That while allowing the claim of a Non-CGHS pensioner for medical reimbursement with 9% interest, the Jabalpur Bench of Hon‟ble Tribunal in Sh. Laxmi Chand Versus Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2005 (1) ATJ 31, noticed that even Central Government O.M. dated 05.06.1998 (Annexure A-6) of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare pursuant to O.M. dated 15.07.1997 of the Department of Pension and Pensioner Welfare has stated in unequivocal terms that it was decided by the Ministry that the pensioners should not be deprived of medical facilities from the Govt. in their old age when they require them most and the Ministry has no objection to extension of CS (MA) Rules to the pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas. The benefits were not extended to pensioners only because of some procedural tangle or lethargic attitude on the part of the relevant Ministry of Department.
(d) That the said O.M. dated 05.06.1998 together with a clarificatory O.M. dated 20.08.2004 (Annexure A-7) came to be examined by the Principal Bench of this Hon‟ble Tribunal in case of Partap Singh Versus Director Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau and others, 2007 (2) (CAT) AISLJ Page 185, decided on 23.08.2006. In OM dated 20.08.2004 the Ministry clarified that O.M. dated 05.06.1998 was not indicated to be a final order extending the applicability of CS (MA) Rules to pensioners. The Principal Bench observed "If one has regard to the above, the previous O.M. dated 05.06.1998 has not been superseded or deleted in any manner but has been clarified to the extent that the pensioners would not come within the preview of CS (MA) Rules".
(e) That the Principal Bench of this Hon‟ble Tribunal in the case of Dr. M.A. Haque Versus Secretary of Environments and Forests, 8/2008 Swamy News 69, O.A.No. 179 of 2007, held that medical reimbursement cannot be denied for treatment in a recognized or unrecognized hospital in emergency and directed reimbursement of full expenses. In the present case also it was an emergency situation and hence patient was rushed to the nearest hospital with all emergency medical facilities to cater the problem suffered by patient.
(f) That the Central Government through CGHS provides cashless treatment to its beneficiaries at its recognized hospitals and diagnostic centers / laboratories. It means that urgent treatment 060/00737/2015 etc 16 is provided free of cost to the concerned employees. In view of this fact, applicant is lawfully entitled to the full reimbursement of cost of his late father‟s treatment under similar situation.
(g) That O.M. dated 10.01.2011 provides in its para 13 that in case of treatment taken in emergency in any non-recognized private hospitals, reimbursement shall be considered by competent authority at CGHS prescribed package / rates only.
(h) That Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krishan Chand Versus Government of NCT and others WP© No. 889/2007 dated 12.03.2010 has observed that :
1) Even if employee contributes after availing medical facilities, and becoming member after treatment, there is entitlement to reimbursement.
2) Even if membership under scheme not processed the retiree entitled to benefits of Scheme.
3) Full amounts incurred have to be paid by the employer;
reimbursement of entire amount has to be made. It is for the Government and the hospital concerned to settle what is correct amount.
4. The pensioner is entitled to full reimbursement so long the hospital remains in approved list.
5) Status of retired employee not as card holder.
6) If medical treatment is availed, whether the employee is cardholders or not is irrelevant and full reimbursement to be given"
(i) That the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and this Hon‟ble Tribunal in the following cases, which were similarly situated like applicant, where Central Government pensioners were residing in non-CGHS areas and drawing Rs.100/- per month (now revised to Rs.300/- per month) as fixed Medical Allowance, had quashed impugned order declining reimbursement to the applicants and directed medical reimbursement by the parent offices, as in the case of serving employees :-
(a) Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India & Others, 2008(2) SCT, 239.
(b) Darshan Singh Rai Vs. Union of India & Others, 2008 (2) SCT 242.
(c) Kishan Chand Versus Govt. of NCT & Others (Annexure A-10)
(d) Iqbal Singh Versus Union of India & Others, O.A.No. 363-CH-2011 decided on 25.7.2011 (Annexure A-11).
(e) Om Parkash Sagar Versus Union of India & Others, O.A.No. 753-HR-2013 decided on 10.1.2014 (Annexure A-12).
(f) Smt. Satinder Bajwa Versus Union of India & Others, O.A.No. 370-HR-2012 decided on 28.5.2012 (Annexure A-13).
5. At this stage, it will not be out of place to mention here that all the applicants (retirees / pensioners) claimed their respective 060/00737/2015 etc 17 reimbursements of medical expenditure, spent on their treatments, on the similar pointed grounds.
6. Sequelly, the applicants have supplied the names of the Hospitals, details of their treatment, respective amounts claimed, which was spent on their treatments, and impugned order, in the following manner:-
Sr. O.A. Name (s) of Name of Treatment Amount Amount Balance Impugned No. No. applicant patient taken at claimed granted amount order 1 737/ Dharminder Late Tilak Alchemist 27.08.2014 2015 Sharma Raj Sharma Hospital 1031278 (Ann.A-1) 2 376/ Swaran Late S.M. DMC, 516273 NIL NIL 10.12.2015 2016 Kanta Bhasin Ludhiana. (Ann.A-1) (widow) 3 621/ Sudarshan Late Kanti CMC, 268655 NIL NIL 05.02.2016 2016 Sharma Prakash Ludhiana (Ann.A-1) 4 295/ Padam Dev Shanti Devi, Fortis 260129 NIL NIL 04.08.2016 2017 Sharma Wife Hospital, (Ann. A-1) Mohali.
5 513/ Yogendra Sachin, Son Oxford 178371 63,963 140408 21.10.2016
2017 Parshad Hospital (Ann. A-1)
(P) Ltd.
Jallandhar
6 587/ Avtar Singh Surinder AIIMS, 592685 308619 189833 18.11.2016
2017 Jaisal Kaur Jassal, New Delhi + (Ann. A-18)
Wife 94233
7 1270/ Suraj Self Dr. P.C. 27517 NIL NIL 16.12.2016
2017 Parkash Sharma (Ann.A-1)
Dogra Eye
Hospital,
Arya
Chowk,
Ambala
8 1380/ Gurdev Self J.P. Eye 36351 NIL NIL 26.05.2017
2017 Singh Azad Hospital, (Ann.A-1)
Mohali
9 1469/ Surinder Late Prem PGIMER, 338666 NIL NIL 11.10.2017
2017 Chakarvarti Vadi, Wife Chandigar (Ann.A-2)
h
10 1503/ Dev Raj Veena Harvinder 148810 NIL NIL 12.04.2017
2017 Sohal Kumari, Wife Memorial (Ann. A-1)
Cancer 10.11.2014
Centre & (Ann.A-2)
Women
Cancer
Centre,
Gian Sagar
Medical
College,
Patiala
11 054/ Des Raj Self Fortis 1164024 665082 498942 24.03.2017
2018 Hospital, By (Ann. A-1)
Mohali Insuran
ce Co.
12 0006 Madan Lal Krishana Metro 90223 NIL NIL 19.09.2017
6/ Kakkar Devi, Wife Heart (Ann. A-3)
2018 Institute,
Faridabad
13 145/ Som Dutt Self Fortis 189640 NIL NIL 31.07.2017
2018 Sharma Hospital, (Ann. A-1)
Faridabad
14 158/ Kanwar Santosh, Adlakha 290126 NIL NIL 19.06.2017
2018 Chattar Wife Hospital, (Ann. A-1),
Singh Mohandai 17.08.2017
Oswal (Ann. A-2)
Hospital, 10.10.2017
Ludhiana. (Ann. A-3)
15 249/ Prem Lata Late Nand DMC, 415605 NIL NIL 24.01.2018 (
2018 Lal Mongia Ludhiana. (Ann.A-1)
16 303/ Naresh Self Hero DMC 257724 NIL NIL 30.12.2015
060/00737/2015 etc
18
2018 Kumar Jain Heart (Ann. A-1),
Institute, 11.07.2017
Ludhiana (Ann. A-2)
11.01.2018
(Ann.A-3)
17 283/ Dass Ram Smt. Gian S.G.L. 239587 NIL NIL 12.07.2017
2018 Leal Kaur, Wife Charitable (Annexure
Hospital, A-1/1)
Kapurthala
.
18 305/ Harjinder Smt. Dukh 294872 NIL NIL 17.05.2016
2018 Singh Gurcharan Niwaran (Ann. A-1)
Kaur, Wife Hospital,
Amritsar
19 353/ Mohan Lal Self Max Super 299241 NIL Nil 21.02.2017
2018 Gupta Specialty (Ann. A-1),
Hosptal, 09.03.2017
Mohali (Ann. A-2),
14.08.2017
(Ann. A-3)
05.03.2018
(Ann. A-4)
20 354/ P.N. Behal Smt. Alchemist 189190 NIL NIL 07.07.2016
2018 Avinash Panchkula (Ann.A-1),
Behal 18.07.2016
(Ann. A-2),
17.08.2017
(Ann. A-3)
19.02.2018
(Ann. A-4)
21 355/ A.L. Anand Self PGIMER, 165583 NIL NIL 23.11.2016
2018 Chandigar (Ann. A-1)
h 14.12.2016
(Ann.,A-2)
14.08.2017
(Ann. A-3)
05.03.2018
(Ann. A-4)
22 358/ Harbir Singh Jatinder IVY 162573 NIL NIL 06.03.2018
2018 Kaur, Wife Hospital, (Ann. A-1)
Hoshiarpur
23 359/ Manohar Lal Self Pragwa 180248.37 NIL NIL 20.02.2018
2018 Bansal Hospital, (Ann. A-1)
Bathinda.
24 383/ Satya Devi Late Shri Shri Ram 313232 NIL NIL 04.12.2014
2018 O.P. Chand (Ann. A-1)
Chawla, Memorial 17.01.2018
Husband Hospital, (Ann. A-2)
Karnal
(Haryana)
25 387/ Smt. Sheela Late D.P. Sanjay 410481 NIL NIL 18.01.2016
2018 Singh Rana, Bansal (Ann. A-1)
husband Cygnus 10.03.2018
Hospital, (Ann. A-2)
Karnal,
RGCIRC,
Delhi &
Indraprasth
a Apollo
Hospital,
New Delhi.
26 392/ Harbans Lal Self PGIMER, 72256 NIL NIL 09.03.2018
2018 Chandi- 16.03.2018
garh (Ann. A-1)
27 402/ Amrit Lal Late Smt. Mayo 411000 NIL NIL 01.06.2017
2018 Chadha Santosh Health (Ann. A-1)
Kumaro Care,
Chadha, Super
Wife Specialty
Hospital,
Mohali.
28 405/ Suraj Smt. Meenu Medanta 405649.64 NIL NIL 05.04.2015
2018 Parkash Malik Hospital, (Ann. A-2)
Malik Gurgaon.
29 426/ Krishan Lal Smt. Appolo 54753 NIL NIL 15.03.2018
2018 Bhatia Surinder Hospital, (Ann. A-1)
Rani, Wife Amritsar.
30 479 / Asha Julka Late Tilak Max 233518 NIL NIL 04.04.2018
2018 Raj Julka Hospital, (Ann.A-1)
(pensioner) Mohali. 07.07.2016
(Ann. A-4)
060/00737/2015 etc
19
7. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, all the applicants have challenged their respective impugned orders and claim that they are entitled to medical reimbursements spent on treatments, on the similar grounds, but their claims have been wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the relevant authorities. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicants seek to assail the impugned orders & action of the respondents and claimed medical reimbursements, in the manner stated hereinabove.
8. On the contrary, the respondents have refuted the claims of the applicants and filed the replies, inter-alia, pleading, that after retirement of the employees, they voluntarily opted for drawing FMA, and have never opted to become member of the CGHS for claiming medical reimbursement facilities, after the same was introduced.
9. According to the contesting respondents, that the medical reimbursement bills of the applicants were rightly rejected by the competent authority, on the ground that there is no provision in the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, for medical reimbursement to retired officers / officials (Annexure R-1). These rules do not provide for medical reimbursement to the retired government servants/pensioners. It was further pleaded that the medical claim of only serving employees are settled, as per the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, and Department does not entertain the claim of retired employees / pensioners. The retired officers/officials have the option to get their names registered with the nearest CGHS authorities for taking medical treatment under CGHS Scheme, after retirement, in which they are eligible for cashless medical treatment 060/00737/2015 etc 20 as per instructions, Annexure R-2. Since, the applicants have taken treatment from private hospitals, so they are not entitled to medical reimbursement, as per Rules, Annexure R-1. The Government of India vide O.M. dated 20.8.2004 (Annexure A-7) was stated to have clarified that it is not financially viable to extend CS (MA) Rules, 1944, to Central Government pensioners, because of huge financial implications. It was claimed that reputed Government Hospitals are also available near the residences of the retired employees / pensioners so they are not entitled to the medical expenditure spent by them in private hospitals. It may be added here that the contesting respondents have taken same very stand in all the OAs to reject the claims of the applicants (retired employees / pensioners).
10. In all, the contesting respondents have pleaded that the applicants have received the treatment from private hospitals, which is against the CGHS Scheme, so they are not entitled to reimbursement of medical claim, in view of CS (MA ) Rules, 1944.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of all the cases.
11. Controverting the pleadings in replies filed by the respondents, and reiterating the grounds contained in the OAs, some of the applicants have filed the rejoinders and prayed for acceptance of OAs. That is how, we are seized of the matter.
12. At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here is that instead of reproducing the entire pleadings of the parties and in order to avoid repetition of facts, suffice it to say that all the applicants, in all these O.As, have claimed that they are also entitled to the medical reimbursement, after their retirement / pension, on similar indicated grounds, whereas on the contrary, 060/00737/2015 etc 21 virtually acknowledging factual matrix and reiterating the validity of the impugned letters / orders, the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations and grounds contained in all the OAs and have prayed for dismissal of the O.As.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance, and after bestowal of thought over the entire matter, we are of the firm view that the instant OAs deserve to be accepted, in the manner and for the reasons, mentioned herein below.
14. As depicted hereinabove, the facts of the cases are neither intricate nor much disputed and fall within a very narrow compass to decide the real controversy between the parties. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question that arises for our consideration, in these cases, is as to whether, the retirees / pensioners are legally entitled to the medial reimbursement of the amounts spent on their treatments, in the given peculiar facts and special circumstances of the cases or not?
15. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the firm opinion that answer must obviously be in affirmative, in this relevant connection, for the following reasons.
16. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that every citizen has a fundamental right of life, liberty and security, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, postulates that, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The meaning assigned to word „Life‟ in Article 21 is not merely the physical act of breathing and it cannot connote mere animal 060/00737/2015 etc 22 existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution free air, etc. It is not a matter of dispute that the Right to life is fundamental to existence of Citizens, without which, they cannot live as human beings and includes all those aspects of life, which go to make a man‟s life meaningful, complete, and worth living, in view of the law laid by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, 1978 AIR 597: 1978 SCR (2) 621 and FRANCIS CORALIE V. UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI, 1981 AIR 746 : 1981 SCR (2) 516.
17. Again, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB V. M.S. CHAWLA AIR 1997 SC 734 : (1997) 2 SCC 353, has ruled that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to health and medical care. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in VINCENT V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1996 SC 2721: (1996) 5 SCC 647, emphasized that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. Sequelly, Article 47 of the Constitution of India, lays stress on improvement of public health and prohibition of drugs injurious to health as one of primary duties of the state.
18. Not only that in the case of PARMANANDA KATARA V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 2002 SC 40 : (2001) 8 SCC 765, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court explained that „once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored, and it is the professional obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical 060/00737/2015 etc 23 aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without legal formalities.
19. Therefore, it cannot possibly be disputed that having good treatment, for dangerous diseases from a good hospital indeed, is a step in aid, to live with dignity, which amounts to right to life to a person, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. If that be so, then no fetters can be placed on the rights of citizens to claim medical reimbursement, post retirement, spent by them on their treatment. No doubt, there are some (inadequate) provisions for grant of medical reimbursement, to serving employees, but that benefit is not available to retired employees / pensioners. Perhaps, the Welfare State thinks, that the moment a person, retires, he ceases to be a citizen of India, which view, indeed cannot prudently be accepted, in any manner.
20. Moreover, it is now well settled principles of law that the Government employees, during their life time, or after their retirement, are entitled to get benefit of medical facilities, and no restriction can legally be placed on such rights. Ex-facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, that since the employees used to get their medical treatment from private hospitals, so they are not entitled to reimbursement of their medical claim, is not only devoid of merit but mis-placed as well. It is now well accepted practice, that ultimate decision, as to how a patient should be treated, vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualifications and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relatives to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated.
060/00737/2015 etc 24 Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors, specialized in a discipline, are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatments. It cannot possibly be saith that taking treatment from a Speciality Hospital by itself, would deprive a person to claim reimbursement merely on the ground that such Hospital is not included in the government order.
21. At the same time, no one can lose sight of the fact that no person would voluntarily intends to be patient of such dangerous disease. Such diseases are result of mis-fortune and destiny of persons. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicants have incurred the amount on wasteful expenditure, but indeed, they were extremely compelled, by unfortunate compelling circumstances, to spend the amounts on their treatments in the hospitals. Only the bearer knows where the show pinches. Indeed everyone and each one should render helping hand to solve the misery of such patients instead of creating hurdles to increase their misery in the garb of redundant rules / instructions.
22. An identical question was decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LTD. VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, 1996 (2) SCC 682, wherein it was observed that the Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare State at the federal level as well as at the State level. The primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in the welfare State. The Government discharges this obligation by 060/00737/2015 etc 25 running hospitals and health centers which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail of those facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person suffering from such dangerous diseases indeed results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under , which is not legally permissible.
23. Ex-facie, the main arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the retired employees / pensioners, are governed by the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, and there is a bar under Note 2 (iv) of Rule (2) thereof, so the applicants are not entitled to re-imbursement of their medical claims, are neither tenable nor observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Others etc. Vs. Union of India etc. AIR 1990 SC 166, dealing with the executive instruction and recruitment rules; State of Sikkim Vs. Dorgee Tshering Bhutia, AIR 1991 SC 1933, dealing with the recruitment and exercise of executive powers; National Mineral Development Corporation Limited Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, AIR 1997 Karnataka 331, dealing with Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh & Others, AIR 2007, SC Page 1082 dealing with statutory rules and service conditions, Union of India & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2013 (14) SCALE 323, dealing with suspension of employee; Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India etc. AIR 060/00737/2015 etc 26 2016 SC 1717, dealing with the Telecom Regulatory Authority, Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 2016 SC 1980, dealing with price of regasified liquefied natural gas, State of Punjab & Another v. Dharam Pal, AIR 2017 SC 4438, dealing with the fixing of pay scale and A.P. Showkath Ali & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2018 (1) SCT, dealing with the special recruitment, are foreign and not, at all, applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the pointed judgments are not at all relevant to decide the real controversy between the parties, involved in this case.
24. Likewise, no implicit reliance can be placed on the observations in PIL judgment in Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations and Others Vs. Union of India & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 399, to decide the present pointed controversy wherein Scheme framed by Government to provide Ex-defence personnel medical services provided they paid "one - time contribution" in respect thereof (which was a reasonable amount), was held to be valid in view of the financial constrains and available means. Similarly, the judgment in Writ Petition © No.14055 of 2006 (S) titled Union of India & Another vs. T.V. Gopalakrishnan, 23.3.2015 delivered by High Court of Kerala, order dated 17.3.2013 in O.A. No. 686-HR-1999 titled Ram Singh Vs. Union of India etc. (Full Bench), O.A.No.060/00689/2014 titled Harpreet Kaur Vs. Union of India & Others and order dated 24.11.2015 in O.A. No. 060/00526/2015 titled Satya Devi Vs. Union of India etc. of this Tribunal or the instructions dated 20.8.2004 and would not come to the rescue of the respondents, for the following reasons.
060/00737/2015 etc 27
25. At the first instance, the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, provided medical reimbursement to the employees. Even Notification dated 5.6.1998 also posits that the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 would apply to the retired employees as well. Thus, the denial of claim of the applicants is arbitrary, illegal and hit by articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, CS (MA) Rules, 1944 and O.M. dated 5.6.1998 read with clarification of 2004 and argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents, were duly considered and negatived by this Tribunal in a bunch of O.As decided on 22.1.2016 along with main O.A.No.060/00884/2014 titled BALDEV SINGH SON OF LATE SH. AVTAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, relying upon decision in PARTAP SINGH VS. DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, 2007 (2) SLJ 185 (CAT) - Principal Bench, New Delhi and other judgments mentioned therein, wherein it was held that if a right has accrued to the pensioner, by virtue of notification dated 05.06.1998, for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred, it cannot be taken away by a clarificatory memorandum. Above all, an administrative order / OM cannot over turn the indicated judicial pronouncements. Similarly, in the case of R. JAMBUKESWARAN V. UNION OF INDIA, 2004 (2) ATJ, CAT 1, it was observed that the decision of the Government and CS (MA) Rules, 1944, to the extent of denying the reimbursement of the medical expenses to the retired employees are not reasonable.
26. Not only that, the import and applicability of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 and clarification dated 20.8.2004 were re-examined, which were held to be arbitrary and illegal, by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a bunch of Writ Petitions, decided 060/00737/2015 etc 28 along with main Writ Petition No. 26270 of 2015 titled UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. MOHAN LAL GUPTA & OTHERS, 2018 (1) SCT, 686.
27. Therefore, once it is held by the Hon‟ble High Court, that pointed O.M. and the rules are illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality, the right of reimbursement of medical claim of retired employees / pensioners, cannot be denied to them in any manner in the grade of Note 2 of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 and clarification dated 20.8.2004. It is not a matter of dispute that the serving employees are entitled to the medical reimbursement under CS (MA) Rules, 1944, then this right, indeed, cannot be denied to the retired employees, on the basis of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in view of the law laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of RAJENDRA YADAV VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS 2013 (2) AISLJ, 120, wherein, it was observed that the concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well, when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right. Equal is to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the Doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. It was also held that the administrative action should be just on the test of 'fair play' and reasonableness.
28. This is not the end of the matter. It is not a matter of dispute that BALDEV SINGH SON OF LATE SHRI AVTAR SINGH & OTHER similarly situated retirees / pensioners, had filed different O.As (060/00884/2014 etc.), on the similar grounds, as have 060/00737/2015 etc 29 been raised by the applicants in the instant cases. The respondents have taken almost all the similar objections of non- applicability of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 etc to deny the claim of the applicants (therein). After considering the various judgments and the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 and other OMs, it was held by a co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 25.2.2016, as under:-
"33. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in our mind in holding that right to health is integral to the right to life and the Government cannot escape from its responsibility to provide health facilities to retired employees as well as held by our jurisdictional high courts. Even if one has not become member of the CGHS due to his/her residing in a non-CGHS area, he/she would be entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses. As has rightly been held by the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Partap Singh (supra) and other cases that the instructions dated 20.8.2004 do not take away the effect of instructions/policy decision dated 5.6.1998. The retirees had to per force opt for fixed medical allowance as the area where they are residing is admittedly not covered by the CGHS facilities. The fixed medical allowance opted for by the retired employees and given to them is for outdoor facilities only and cannot take care of hospitalization. In view of these facts, these nine Original Applications are allowed. The orders rejecting the medical reimbursement claim of the applicants are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider and reimburse the medical reimbursement claim of the applicants at the rates fixed by AIIMS/PGIMER, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
29. Admittedly, the judgment of this Tribunal has already attained finality as the Writ Petitions No.26270 of 2015 (O&M) etc. titled UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. MOHAN LAL GUPTA & ANOTHER ETC. have already been dismissed vide orders dated 17.1.2018 by a Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein while rejecting the objections of non- applicability of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to indicated categories, raised by the Union of India, the Hon‟ble Court granted the reimbursement of medical expenditure to the retirees / pensioners.
060/00737/2015 etc 30
30. The matter does not rest there. The Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of AYOUDHIA PRASAD DUGGAL VS. CAT, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS, CWP No. 22833 of 2015, decided on 20.2.2017, has ruled as under :-
"We are therefore, inclined to concur with the decision of the Delhi High Court in a substantially identical matter being 'Daljit Singh Versus Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors.' WP (C) No.16651/2006 in which, relying upon an earlier decision in the case of 'State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Mohan Lal Jindal' 2001(9) SCC 217 wherein the stand of the Government in refusing to reimburse the in-patient charges for the treatment in the said Hospital was rejected and the Government was held to be under a constitutional obligation to reimburse the expenses since the right to health is an integral to the right of life, it was observed -
"14. The undisputed position that emerges is that a patient is entitled to reimbursement of the full amount of medical expenses and not only at the rates specified in the circular of 1996 and in case respondent No. 2 has charged a higher rate, than could have been charged, it is for respondent No. 1 to settle the matter with respondent No. 2. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the reimbursement.........
4. In view of the above it is no longer res integra that merely because the Government does not revise the package deal amount under the Medical Attendance Rules from time to time a person cannot be denied actual medical costs, and there has to be reimbursement of the actual medical expenses incurred."
31. Meaning thereby, to have a good treatment from a Good Specialty Hospital is a step in aid, to live with dignity, which is a fundamental right of a person guaranteed by Constitution of India. Any such contrary instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before the enforcement of Constitution, having the effect of non-reimbursement of medical expenses to the retirees/pensioners are illegal, in-operative, and deserve to be ignored, on the analogy as contemplated under Article 13 of the Constitution of India.
32. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. The question, as to whether the retirees / pensioners are entitled for reimbursement of medical expenditure or not, is no more res-integra and is now well settled.
060/00737/2015 etc 31
33. An identical question recently came to be decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of SHIVA KANT JHA VS. UNION OF INDIA, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 694 of 2015 decided on 13.4.2018, wherein having interpreted the CGHS Scheme vis-à-vis CS (MA) Rules, 1944, it was specifically ruled as under :-
"13) It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court.
14) This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the writ petitioner was admitted in the above said hospitals in emergency conditions. Moreover, the law does not require that prior permission has to be taken in such situation where the survival of the person is the prime consideration. The doctors did his operation and had implanted CRT-D device and have done so as one essential and timely. Though it is the claim of the respondent-State that the rates were exorbitant whereas the rates charged for such facility shall be only at the CGHS rates and that too after following a proper procedure given in the Circulars issued on time to time by the concerned Ministry, it also cannot be denied that the petitioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions for survival of his life which requirement was above the sanctions and treatment in empanelled hospitals.
060/00737/2015 etc 32
15) In the present view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the CGHS is responsible for taking care of healthcare needs and well being of the central government employees and pensioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the treatment of the petitioner in non-empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option left with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,99,555/- to the writ petitioner. We also make it clear that the said decision is confined to this case only.
16) Further, with regard to the slow and tardy pace of disposal of MRC by the CGHS in case of pensioner beneficiaries and the unnecessary harassment meted out to pensioners who are senior citizens, affecting them mentally, physically and financially, we are of the opinion that all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. We, hereby, direct the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 (one) Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 (seven) days. We further direct the concerned Ministry to take steps to form the Committee as expeditiously as possible. Further, the above exercise would be futile if the delay occasioned at the very initial stage, i.e., after submitting the relevant claim papers to the CMO-I/C, therefore, we are of the opinion that there shall be a timeframe for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. In this view, we are of the opinion that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.
17) In view of the foregoing discussion, we dispose of the petition filed by the writ petitioner with the above terms."
34. Therefore, it is held that the applicants, who are retirees / pensioners, are indeed also entitled to reimbursement of medical claims of the amounts spent on their treatment and any redundant rule or instructions, or impugned order having the effect of denial of such reimbursement of medical claims to them, are arbitrary, illegal inoperative and hit by the Constitutional provisions. As such the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, stricto sensu, deserve to be and are hereby repelled, under the present set of circumstances. On the other end, the ratio of law laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the indicated judgments, mutatis mutandis, is applicable to the present controversy and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
060/00737/2015 etc 33
35. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
36. In the light of the aforesaid prismatic reasons, the instant OAs are accepted. The impugned orders (in all the cases) are, accordingly, hereby set aside. As a consequences thereof, the respective competent authorities are directed to verify and reimburse the amount of medical claim of the applicants, within a period of one month, in the same terms and manner, as directed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha‟s case (supra). However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(P. GOPINATH) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 07.05.2018
HC*
060/00737/2015 etc