Union Of India & 2 vs Prataprai Shantilal Oza on 18 June, 2015

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Union Of India & 2 vs Prataprai Shantilal Oza on 18 June, 2015

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A.No.369 of 2013, whereby the original application was partly allowed and it was ordered that the respondents-petitioners herein shall consider the request for reimbursement of the medical claim and shall reimburse the admissible amount as per the government approved rates. It was also ordered that the respondents-petitioners shall also pay 9% interest on the amount so Page 1 of 8 C/SCA/15702/2014 ORDER payable from 18.7.2013 till payment.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are such that the respondent herein who was working as Deputy Postmaster in Rajkot Head Post Office, Rajkot had retired from service on account of superannuation in the year 1990. He was admitted in SAL hospital in Ahmedabad in the month of January, 2013 and he had undergone Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery on 16.1.2013. He submitted his medical bills for total amount of Rs.1,60,736/- for his above referred treatment at SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad and claimed medical reimbursement for the same from the petitioners. The said claim was rejected by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vide his letter/communication dated 21.8.2013 on the ground that the respondent being pensioner is not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. Respondent challenged the above referred decision/communication dated 21.8.2013 before the CAT and sought for necessary directions requiring petitioners to reimburse the amount of medical bills/claims alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

3. The said O.A. was contested by the petitioners by filing reply to the effect that Page 2 of 8 C/SCA/15702/2014 ORDER respondent being retired employee is not entitled to reimbursement of medical claims. It was contended that reimbursement of medical claims in the Department of Posts is governed by Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. It was contended that the above referred rules are not applicable to retired government employees. It was further contended that the respondent- pensioner is residing at non-CGHS area and option was available for respondent to avail fixed medical allowance of Rs.300/- per month for medical treatment and or obtain CGHS card from nearest CGHS covered area for in-patient facilities under CGHS. It was submitted that respondent being pensioner who is residing at non-CGHS area has option to become CGHS beneficiaries and avail CGHS facilities for the nearest CGHS covered city. However, respondent has not opted to avail CGHS facility and has opted for fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- (now Rs.300/-) per month.

4. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the Tribunal passed the order impugned in this petition.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in Page 3 of 8 C/SCA/15702/2014 ORDER considering the medical claim of the respondent. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that upon implementation of recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission fixed medical allowance at Rs.100/- to Central Government pensioners, residing in area not covered under CGHS was introduced. The said rates are revised from Rs.100/- to Rs.300/- vide O.M. dated 26.5.2010. It is pertinent to note that respondent herein is residing in non-CGHS area and drawing fixed medical allowance of Rs.300/- per month and he could have obtained CGHS card from the nearest CGHS covered city. However, he had not chosen to obtain CGHS card and continued to avail the benefit of fixed medical allowance of Rs.300/- per month. Hence, the respondent cannot claim medical reimbursement.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Pathak appeared for the respondent. He supported the order of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and not required to be interfered with.

7. The learned Tribunal has discussed in paragraph 12 as under:

"12. In Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.

V.Employees' State Insurance Page 4 of 8 C/SCA/15702/2014 ORDER Corporation, (1996)2 SCC 682 in para 9 at page 688 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

The expression `life' assured in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure facilities and opportunities to eliminate sickness and physical disability of the workmen.

Health of the workmen enables him to enjoy the fruits of his labour, to keep him physically fit and mentally alert. Medical facilities, therefore, is a fundamental and human right to protect his health. In that case [Consumer Education & Research Center &Ors. V.Union of India & Ors.(1995)3 SCC 42] health insurance, while in service or after retirement was held to be a fundamental right and even private industries are enjoined to provide health insurance to the workman.

(emphasis supplied)"

Page 5 of 8 C/SCA/15702/2014 ORDER

8. Further the learned Tribunal has held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under:

"15. The present scenario of medical assistance to the retired Government employees is far from satisfactory. It is true that the Courts and Tribunals shall not interfere with the policies of the Government. But in cases like this it is the duty of the Courts and Tribunals to remind the government of their obligations and responsibilities in the matter of extending medical facilities to the retired Government employees at par with the serving Government officials. This is especially so in the light of the Constitutional obligations on the part of the Government and the instrumentalities of the Government to ensure protection of the right to life envisaged in the Constitution of India. As observed in Consumer Educations & Research Centre's case (supra) the right to life enlarges its sweep to encompass human personality in its full blossom with invigorated health to sustain the dignity of person and to live a life with dignity and equality.

Page 6 of 8 C/SCA/15702/2014 ORDER

16. If the serving government Officials and the retired Government Officials are treated differently in the matter of protecting their health, keeping a wide hiatus between the two categories in the context of granting medical facilities, the same would be violative of the fundamental right of equality guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is worth reminding that when policies relating to retired Government servants and pensioners are formulated, they should be in consonance with the directive principles of State policy envisaged in Articles 41 and 47 in Part- IV of the Constitution of India. Medical assistance and facilitating emergency treatments to the old retired Government servants and their dependants will be a step forward in mitigating their "undeserved want" arising out of deterioration of health in the post- retirement life. This is in consonance with Article 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, this matter deserves an obligatory approach from the Central and State Governments."

Page 7 of 8 C/SCA/15702/2014 ORDER

9. We are in complete with the above findings of the learned Tribunal. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed.

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (G.B.SHAH, J.) Srilatha Page 8 of 8

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court