Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Raj Mal Atul Ex-Deputy Commandant vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 12 November, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No. 1039/HP/09.
Chandigarh: this 12th day of November, 2010.
HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A).
Raj Mal Atul Ex-Deputy Commandant
R/o Village and P.O. Rangas, Distt. Hamirpur
(Himachal Pradesh).
.Applicant.
(By: Shri T.P.S. Bhatti, advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
Directorate General, SSB, East Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Directorate General of Health Services
(CGHS Desk 1), Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.
.Respondents.
(By: Shri Rohit Sharma, proxy counsel for respondents)
O R D E R
(By: Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:-
i)This Tribunal may set aside/quash the order dated 13.7.2009, Annexure A/10, vide which the claim of the applicant for reimbursement of the medical bills on the treatment of his wife has been wrongly rejected by the competent authority and returned the medical bills of the applicant.
ii)This Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to reimburse the medical claim of Rs. 2, 07,504/- to the applicant for the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife in the Govt. recognized hospital.
2. The facts of the case as projected by the applicant are that he retired on superannuation as Deputy Commandant from Group Centre, SSB Sunder Bani on 30.6.2001. He has stated that at the time of superannuation, he had not exercised any option for CGHS. He has further stated that his wife suffered a heart ailment on 12.8.2008 and was rushed to the Govt. Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. After being referred thereto by the doctors, she was admitted in Fortis Hospital which is stated to be on the panel of Himachal Pradesh Govt. He has stated that his wife was operated upon immediately and a permanent pace-maker was implanted and he spent a huge amount on her treatment. The applicant submitted the medical bill of Rs. 2,07,540/- for the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife, vide application dated 25.9.2008 (A/1) which was returned with the remarks that the medical claim for Rs. 2,07,504/- has been examined and as per Medical Attendance Rules, there is no provision for reimbursement of medical claim to retired Central Govt. employees. In response to his representation dated 8.11.2008 (A/3), the applicant was informed vide Annexure A/4, dated 18.12.08 that at the time of treatment, he was not a CGHS beneficiary, and therefore his claim could not be approved. Thereafter, in compliance of the letter dated 17.6.2009, the applicant intimated to the Director General that presently he is a CGHS card holder vide Token no. P.4895. However, his medical claim has been returned vide Annexure A/10, dated 13.7.2009 with the remarks that as per existing provisions of Medical Attendance Rules, reimbursement of the cost of treatment is available only to those retirees who have registered themselves as a member of the C.G.H.S. after depositing 10 years subscription at the time of retirement and there is no provision in the AMA Rules to reimburse the medical treatment expenses to a retiree who has not subscribed to the same. Hence, the applicant has filed this OA praying for the said reliefs.
3. The respondents in their written reply have stated that as per CGHS Rules, a Govt. servant is required to obtain a card, on payment of prescribed subscription, immediately after retirement and in any case not later than three months thereafter. They have stated that in special cases where a pensioner could not apply for obtaining a CGHS card due to conditions beyond his control, his case for reimbursement could be considered, otherwise in no case does a pensioner have a right to claim medical reimbursement for treatment taken for himself or his dependent family members, for the period when he was not a registered member of the CGHS. According to the respondents, a delay in getting the CGHS card after six and half years of retirement could not be justified on any ground. They have further stated that the applicant, being a Central Govt. pensioner, irrespective of his place of residence, could have become a member of CGHS in the year 2002 when CGHS was introduced in Chandigarh by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare through an announcement/advertisement dated 1.1.2002 published in the Tribune. However, he became a member of the CGHS w.e.f. 27.8.2008 i.e. after the date of treatment of his wife. Thus, they have stated that as he failed to become a member of the CGHS till 26.8.2008, he is not entitled to any medical reimbursement for the treatment taken before that date.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
5. After careful consideration of the matter, it is found that the claim of medical reimbursement of the applicant is covered by a decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 706/PB/2005 (Shalo Ram Vs. Union of India & others) which has been confirmed by Honble D.B. of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 981/CAT-2007, decided on 22.1.2007. The respondents had challenged the order dated 22.1.2007 of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP 981/CAT-2007 (Union of India & another Vs. Shalo Ram & others) before the Honble Supreme Court of India and the Honble Supreme Court had dismissed the petition vide its order dated 9.4.2009.
6. In view of the above, this O.A. is, therefore, allowed in the same terms as in OA No. 706/PB/2005. The respondents are accordingly directed to decide the claim of the applicant under the CGHS within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the applicant be paid permissible dues of medical treatment of his wife under the CGHS while duly communicating the order to him. The OA stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) MEMBER (A) Dated: 12.11.2010.
ms 1 OA no. 1039/HP/2009.