Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surjit Singh Grewal Son Of Shri Jagir ... vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 859-PB of 2012
Chandigarh, this the 7th day of September , 2012
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER(A)
Surjit Singh Grewal son of Shri Jagir Singh, aged 70 years, Assistant Engineer-Civil (Retired), R/o House No. 1923, Phase V, Sector 59, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI MANOHAR LAL
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandimandir.
3. Principal, Controller of Defence Accounts, Western Command, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI K.P.S. DHILLON
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
1. Counter filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.
2. The applicant having retired w.e.f. 30.9.2001, became a member of the CGHS by making the relevant contribution and the CGHS Card came to be issued in his name on 19.6.2012 (Annexure A-16). These facts are beyond the pale of controversy.
3. The wife of the applicant hospitalized twice i.e. from 7.12.2011 to 20.12.2011 and 10.3.2012 to 19.5.2012 was not found medically fit to undertake the required heart surgery. It was ultimately on 9th May, 2012 that she was operated upon.
4. The claim raised by the applicant herein for the grant of reimbursement is resisted by the respondents on the sole premise that the CS (MA) rules are not applicable to the retired employees who have not opted for CGHS facilities while in job.
5. Cue to the controversy is to be found in the Judgment rendered in W.P. ) No. 889 of 2007 decided on 12.3.2010 ( Kishan Chand Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. & Others) by the High Court of Delhi which held that an employee making the relevant contribution (even) after retirement would also be entitled to medical reimbursement. The relevant para of the findings recorded by Delhi High court is extracted hereunder:-
7. In the case of V.K. Jagdhari (Supra), which has been relied by the petitioners, a similar question arose before the Court and objection was taken that since the employee had opted for the CGHS card after his surgery, therefore, he was clearly disentitled to the claim of reimbursement. Answering the said question in negative, the Court clearly held that pensioner cannot be discriminated against merely because he has not opted for CGHS scheme or he reside outside a non-CGHS area. Taking into consideration the ratio of the judgments in the S.K. Sharma (supra) and Som Dutt Sharma (supra) case, this court consolidated the legal position and held that:
The position emerging from various decisions of this Court maybe summarized as follows:
(1) Even if employee contributes after availing medical facilities, and becoming member after treatment, there is entitlement to reimbursement (DB) Govt. of NCT V. S.S. Sharma: 118(2005)DLT 144. (2) xxxxxxxxxxx (3) Xxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxx (5) Xxxxxxxxxxx (6) Xxxxxxxxxxx
6. The view obtained by the Delhi High Court was followed ( in O.A. No. 904/CH/2011 - Inder Sain Sachdeva Vs. UOI & Ors.) by a D.B. of this Tribunal to which one of us ( S.D. Anand J.) was a party.
7. In so far as the claim made in the course of the O.A. and reiterated during the course of hearing for the grant of total reimbursement is concerned, the grant thereof is authorized by the view obtained by a learned D.B. of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 248/PB/2011 ( R.P. Mehta Vs. UOI & Ors.) decided on 25.1.2002 (Annexure A-6) and in the case of Kishan Chand (Supra) Annexure A-11. By placing reliance upon the V.K.Gupta Vs. Union of India, 97(2002) DLT 337) a learned Single Bench of Delhi High Court held that a pensioner is entitled to full reimbursement so long the hospital remains in approved list.
8. There is no controversy that the PGI is on the approved list of health institutions wherein the relevant category of employees (in service or retired) can obtained treatment.
9. In the light of above discussion, we would allow this O.A. and uphold the entitlement of the applicant to the grant of full reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the treatment of his wife. The implementation of this order must come about within one month from today.
10. We are, in fact, exasperated at the fact that the denial of the medical reimbursement claim cause about on the sole premise which had been negatived by Delhi High Court in W.P (C/No. 889 of 2007) decided on 12.3.2010. We cannot, however, grant interest to the applicant in view of the refrain in the relevant behalf mandated by the Honble Apex judicial dispensation.
11. The O.A. shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Dated: September 7, 2012 `SK 1 (OA No. 859-PB-2012 )