Jharkhand High Court
Premlata Kumari vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 20 April, 2022
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(S) No. 4415 of 2021
Premlata Kumari ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair,
Government of India, North Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
3. The Director General of C.I.S.F., having its office at Block No. 13,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
4. The inspector General of CISF, having its office at Tiril, P.O. -
Dhurwa, P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of CISF, East Zone Head Quarter
Patna, having its office at Boring Road, P.O. - Patliputra, P.S. -
Patliputra, District - Patna, Bihar.
6. The Senior Commandant, having its office at CISF Unit, HEC,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Commandant, having its office at CISF Unit, HEC, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
8. The Deputy Commandant, having its office at CISF Unit, HEC,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
9. The Assistant Commandant, having its office at CISF Unit, HEC,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. The Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, through its
Chairman and Managing Director, having its office at Plant Plaza
Road, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents-UOI Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
---------------
04/20.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has knocked door of this Court with a prayer to quash Letter No. E-41011/ Keausub/ HEC/ NGF/ Medi/ 2021 - 3785, Dated 27.08.2021, issued by the Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit HEC, Ranchi, by which claim of re-imbursement of Medical Bill has been declined on the ground that as per prevalent practices, parents of employees/ CISF Personnel are not eligible for medical references and re-imbursement. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reimburse entire Medical Bill amount to RC/ 2 the petitioner which has been incurred upon treatment of her mother-in- law.
As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 to the post of Lady Constable/ General Duty with CISF No. 081753925, in Central Industrial Security Force and presently posted and working at its Unit situated in HEC, Ranchi, Jharkhand. Petitioner got married in the year 2020 and thereafter she submitted an application for deletion of name of her parent and two younger brothers from the list of dependent family members with a request to insert name of her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband in their place. After processing by the department, the necessary changes were made in the name of dependent members.
It is specific case of the petitioner that prior to undergoing eye treatment of her mother-in-law, petitioner sought permission from the Department concerned and submitted representation before the authorities concerned and in response thereof, an official letter dated 22.02.2021 was written by the concerned authority. Thereafter, on 05.04.2021, petitioner's mother-in-law got admitted in ASG Eye Hospital, Patna wherein cataract developed in her right eye was operated and subsequently was discharged on 06.04.2021. Am expenditure of Rs.21,096/- was incurred in entire treatment. Thereafter, on 12.04.2021, Bill amounting to Rs.21,096/- was submitted by the petitioner claiming reimbursement of medical expenses supported with prescription, discharge summary, bill etc. However, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 27.08.2021 by the Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, HEC, Ranchi on the ground that as per prevalent practice, parents of employees/ CISF personnel are not eligible for medical references and reimbursement. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has assailed rejection order by way of instant writ petition.
Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that in view of Central Government Health Scheme, at the face of it, appears that the impugned order has been passed mechanically. Drawing attention of this Court towards page-18 of the counter affidavit which is Text of MH & FW. O.M. No. F.4(1)-18/ 63 RC/ 3
- H, Dated 03.03.1987, learned counsel submits that there is specific provision under which a female government employee may avail CGHS benefits either for their parents or parents in law. Learned counsel further argues that as per Rule 62(i) of the Central Industrial Security Force, Rule, 2001, CISF Personnel deployed with Public Sector Undertaking, the medical facilities to the CISF Personnel to be provided by the PSU at par with its employees free of charge and as such, objection raised by the HEC is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction may be passed to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred towards treatment of her mother-in-law. Learned counsel places reliance upon the Judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 2657 of 2019, disposed of on 11.11.2020.
Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI assisted by Mr. Parth Jalan, learned counsel appearing for Union of India opposing contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since permission was not taken by the petitioner from the employer and as such the same could not be reimbursed. However, learned counsel very fairly submits that in view of CGHS Rule, petitioner is wholly entitled to get reimbursement of medical bills of her mother-in-law.
Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:
(i) Petitioner and her dependent were entitled for treatment in any hospital outside the city in case of emergency. The emergency is obvious from the treatment and the certificate produced by the petitioner as eyes of her mother-in-law was operated for cataract which was at final stage. This ought to have been considered by the respondents authorities that had the patient not treated, she might have lost her eye-sight and as such there was no illegality on part of the petitioner to get her mother treated in a hospital at Patna.
(ii) The entitlement of the petitioner is also not in dispute and the rejection order on the ground of entitlement is falsified in view of Scheme of CGHS and as such not tenable in the eyes of law. The RC/ 4 Scheme clearly talks that a lady Government servant will be given the choice to include either her parents or parents-in-law for the purpose of availing of the benefits under the CGHS Scheme subject to the conditions of dependence and residence, etc. being satisfied.
(iii) The issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India reported in (2018) 16 SCC 187. Para-13, 14 and 16 of the said Judgment reads as under:
"13. Further, the writ petitioner was admitted in emergency condition with complaint of breathlessness on 11-11-2013 in Fortis Escorts Health Institute, which was a non-empanelled hospital at the relevant time. He underwent angiography on 12-11-2013 which revealed diffused disease in left anterior descending coronary artery 50-60%. He had been implanted the CRT-D device (Combo) as part of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) on 12-11-2013. The hospital charged an amount of Rs 11,56,293 for the said treatment, out of which, an amount of Rs 10,70,000 was for the cost of the unlisted cardiac implant (CRT-D) and an amount of Rs 3,19,950 was paid by the insurance company directly to the hospital.
14. A Special Technical Committee meeting was held on 29- 4-2014 to consider the case of the petitioner. However, on examining the same, the Committee did not find any justification for the implant of CRT-D device of the petitioner. On a further request by the petitioner, the Special Technical Committee again did not find any justification for the implant of CRT-D device on 10-7-2014. On a request for reconsideration by the petitioner, on 15-1-2015, the case of the petitioner was again reconsidered by the Special Technical Committee which denied the claim of CRT-D. .........
16. With a view to provide the medical facility to the retired/serving CGHS beneficiaries, the Government has empanelled a large number of hospitals on CGHS panel, however, the rates charged for such facility shall be only at CGHS rates and, hence, the same are paid as per the procedure. Though the respondent State has pleaded that CGHS has to deal with large number of such retired beneficiaries and if the petitioner is compensated beyond the policy, it would have large-scale ramification as none would follow the procedure to approach the empanelled hospitals and would rather choose private hospital as per their own free will. It cannot be ignored that such private hospitals raise exorbitant bills subjecting the patient to various tests, procedures and treatment which may not be necessary at all times."
RC/ 5
(iv) Regarding the rule relating to medical facilities of CISF, it is clear that the CISF Rule, 2001 provides in Rule 62 as Medical Facilities - Members of the Force shall be entitled to the facilities of the Central Government Health Scheme and in places where these facilities are not available, they shall be governed by the Central Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944, Provided that when they are deployed in a Public Sector Undertaking i. In a case where such Public Sector Undertaking provides medical facilities to its employees, such members of the Force shall be entitled to avail such facilities free of charge; and ii. If such facilities are not available, the authorized medical attendant for such members of the Force will be as provided in the Central Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944.
(v) Admittedly HEC is a Public Sector Undertaking and CISF Personnel deployed with it shall get the medical facilities at par with its employees. Only on technical grounds, claim has been rejected, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.
As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, I hereby quash and set aside Letter No. E-41011/ Keausub/ HEC/ NGF/ Medi/ 2021 - 3785, Dated 27.08.2021, issued by the Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit HEC, Ranchi. Respondents - HEC is directed to consider the matter and reimburse the Medical Bills/expenses incurred in treatment of mother-in- law of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
With aforementioned observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/