Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Manmohan Singh vs Post Punjab Circle on 26 February, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/693/2022
Chandigarh, this the 26th day of February, 2024
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Manmohan Singh, Son of Late Sh. Ajit Singh Sachdeva,
Aged about 62 years, R/o. H.No.2561, Tehsilpura, Backside
Pingalwara, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar - 143001 (Group-B).
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Harish Chandra proxy for Sh. M. K.
Bhatnagar)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Communication and I.T., Department
of Post, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Post Master General, Area-II, Sector - 17, Chandigarh -
160017.
3. Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Amritsar Division, Amritsar
- 143001.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ashwani K. Sharma, SPC)
2
O R D E R(Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(i) Respondents be directed to reimburse Rs.56,654/- for emergent treatment being the expenses incurred by applicant on emergent treatment with 12% interest for delayed payment by set aside the order dt. 011/19.01.2021 (Annexure A-1);
(ii)Any other relief/direction/order this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant;"
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is son of late Sh. Ajit Singh Sachdeva, who took voluntary retirement on 01.01.1981 from G.P.O., Amritsar. The father of applicant died on 30.01.2010 and thereafter his mother Smt. Mohinder Kaur was getting family pension. The mother of applicant (wife of deceased employee) suffered from fracture and admitted from 22.07.2020 to 25.07.2020 for emergency treatment in Sri. Guru Ram Das Charitable Hospital, Sri Amritsar. During the treatment the mother of applicant died on 24.09.2020. The wife of deceased employee was fully dependent upon her husband (late employee). Since father of applicant was a Central Government employee, therefore, he 3 applied for reimbursement of the medical claim of Rs.56,654/-. The copy of death certificate, application form, discharge summary, emergency certificate, copy of PPO have been placed on record as Annexures A-2 to A-7. He submitted that as per the Medical policy of Central Government all employee, either working or retired are entitled for full reimbursement. The applicant submitted that he incurred a total expenditure of Rs.56,654/- for emergency medical treatment and the same was preferred to respondent no.3 on 11/19.01.2021 (Annexure A-1) but the claim was rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground that the father of applicant, being a retired government employee was not entitled to reimbursement of charges on medical treatment.
3. He submitted that the action of respondents in rejecting the medical reimbursement claim without passing a speaking order only on the ground that reimbursement do not apply to retired Government officials and their families under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot be sustained. The applicant relied on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Union of India and others v Mohan Lal Gupta and another [(2008) 1 SCT 687] and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shiv Kant Jha v Union of 4 India [W.P (Civil) No.695/2005] decided on 13.04.2018 and several other judgments. The applicant submitted that as per these judgments the retired pensioners residing in non-CGHS area cannot be deprived of medical facilities in their old age. Further in the case of Baldev Raj Sharma v Union of India [O.A No.060/00668/2018], this Tribunal held that medical reimbursement cannot be denied and case was allowed and respondents were directed to reimbursement of expenses.
4. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant and supporting the Annexure A-1 letter submitting that the claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected on the ground that as per CSMA Rules 1944, pensioners are not covered under these rules and reimbursement is not admissible to them. The applicant is neither retired Central Government Official nor family pensioner. Hence, he is not entitled for any kind of reimbursement.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused material on records.
6. M.A No.1512 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 193 days has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 193 days in filing the Original Application. It has been pleaded that the respondent department had rejected the 5 medical claims on 11/19.01.2021 but dispatched on 25.01.2021 which was never received by the applicant. The applicant got copy only on 28.05.2021. He submitted that there is a delay of 193 days after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo-moto Writ (Civil) No.3 of 2020. The delay in filing the Original Application is neither intentional nor willful. Learned counsel for the respondents contested the claim of the applicant and submitted that the instant O.A is filed after expiry of limitation period as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt during that period the entire world was fighting with the Covid-19 pandemic. Since the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay of 193 days, therefore, M.A No.1512 of 2022 is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Delay of 193 days is condoned.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the letter (Annexure A-1) is contrary to the law settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Mohan Lal Gupta and Another (supra). The issue has also been settled up by the Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court. A similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal in O.A No.060/00737/2017 and connected matters on 07.05.2018 and rejected the plea of the respondents therein that the retired employees do not come within the ambit of CS(MA) Rules, 1944 and held that retirees/pensioners are entitled to reimbursement of medical claims of the amount spent on their treatment in view of judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Mohan Lal Gupta (supra) and the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kant Jha v Union of India [W.P(C)No.695/2015].
8. The plea taken by the respondents to reject the claim of the applicant for medical reimbursement that the CS (MA) Rules are not applicable to the retirees has already been negated by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohan Lal Gupta (supra), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the petition filed by the Union of India. Following the decision aforementioned, this Tribunal recently allowed an identical case of Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 267/2021 decided on 19.07.2023) holding the applicant therein eligible to get medical reimbursement for indoor treatment taken for her spouse.
7
9. In view of the legal position as discussed herein above, the letter dated 11/19.01.2021 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same is therefore quashed and set aside. The Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to settle the medical claim of the applicant with regard to treatment of his mother (late) at the CGHS rates, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) Member (J) bp