Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Meghla Ram Lohia vs Department Of Posts on 15 January, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.428/2024
On this the 15th Day of January, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Sh. Meghla Ram Lohla S/o Sh Girdhari Lal, age 80 years,
Retired Assistant Postmaster, HSG-1, resident of 313/12 Colony
Road Balle di Chakki Wali Gali, 12 Dabwali Sirsa Haryana,
presently residing at Flat No 601, T-Tower, SBI Colony, Sector-
13, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai, Distt Thane, Maharashtra Pin
400706. Having Aadhaar No. 599115136285. Mobile No.
9425708207. (Retired as Assistant Postmaster, HSG-1) (Group
B).
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Kanika Toor proxy for Sh. Chandeep Singh).
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communications, Postal Directorate Dak Bhavan New Delhi
110001 (email id: [email protected])
2. Secretary, Department of Posts & Chairperson, Postal
Services Board, Postal Directorate Dak Bhavan New Delhi
110001 (email id [email protected])
3. Director Postal Services (HQ), 107, The Mall Ambala Cantt-
133001 [email protected]
4. Director of Accounts (Postal), 107, The Mall AmbalaCantt-
133001 (Haryana), Pin 133001 [email protected]
5. Superintendent of Post Offices-cum- Pension Sanctioning
Authority, Hisar Postal Division, Hisar, 125001 Email ids:
[email protected], [email protected]
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC).
2
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
(i) Letter No. E-6/MR/Corr/2024/Megla Ram Lohia dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure A-10) as issued by respondent No. 5 as well as email communication dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure A-11) issued by respondent No. 5 whereby the Applicant's Medical Reimbursement Claim for a sum of Rs. 4,40,231/- has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, unjust and against the law already settled; AND/OR
(ii) Respondents be directed to make reimbursement of his medical claim for 4,40,231/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. towards his treatment during the period from 15.09.2023 to 24.11.2023 while he was admitted in DY Patil Healthcare Hospital, Navi Mumbai & Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Navi Mumbai, in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 13.04.2018 in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Versus Union of India WP (Civil) No.694/2015.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant retired on 31.10.2004 as Assistant Postmaster, HSG-1 from the office of Head Post Office, Hisar and was residing in Navi Mumbai with his daughter. He was admitted to Dr DY Patil Hospital, Nerul, Navi Mumbai due to sudden spurt in his Blood Pressure level and was discharged from the hospital on 20.09.2023. Thereafter again, on the midnight of 15.11.2023 at 3:50 am due to sudden spurt in Blood Pressure level, chest pain etc. the Applicant was again 3 taken to the Dr DY Patil Hospital, Nerul, Navi Mumbai thereafter on the same day i.e. on 15th Nov 2023 had to be shifted to another hospital for better treatment. Again, on 21.11.2023 was rushed to a nearby hospital, considering the critical condition of the Applicant, his family members shifted the applicant to Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Navi Mumbai where the applicant underwent treatment of Angioplasty including Stent for blocked veins and other treatment as suggested by the doctors. The applicant was finally discharged on 24.11.2023 from the hospital. Applicant vide his representation(s) dated 29.12.2023 submitted his medical claim totalling to a sum of Rs. 4,40,231/- for reimbursement to Respondents during the period from 15.09.2023 to 24.11.2023. However, the same has been rejected vide letter dated 30.01.2024 and one email dated 23.01.2024 sent stating that CS (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 are not applicable to retirees. Copy of the representations dated 29.12.2023 have been annexed herewith as Annexure A-6 to A-9 and the impugned letters/communication dated 30.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 as Annexure A-10 and A-11.
3. After examining facts on record, I find merit in the 4 contention of the applicant that the contention of respondents that CS (MA) Rules, 1944 are not applicable to the retires is no more res integra as in several decisions of various Benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal, Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has categorically been held that a retired Government employee residing in non-CGHS area and also drawing Fixed Medical Allowance is also entitled to get indoor medical facilities.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13.04.2018 in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Versus Union of India 2018 (2) SCT 529 has held in Para 13 that it is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights nor can claim be denied merely on the ground that name of hospital is not included in the Government order. The real test is the factum of treatment. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to make the payment within one month to the petitioner and to form a committee to settle medical reimbursement cases of retired pensioners to ensure timely hassle free disposal of the claims.
5. I find that by following Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment 5 in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Versus Union of India and others, this Hon'ble Tribunal in DB order dated 07.05.2018 has allowed 30 OAs of similarly situated applicants in the case of Dharminder Sharma and 29 others Versus Union of India and others. Further, this Tribunal vide order dated 19.01.2023 while deciding OA No.714/2020 and others has answered the following questions of law in affirmative:-
i. Whether the CS (MA) Rules are applicable to the retired persons.
ii.Whether the retirees who have opted for fixed medical allowance are entitled to medical reimbursement of indoor treatment. iii.Whether the applicants are entitled for medical reimbursement for emergency treatment.
iv.Whether the retired employees who have not opted for indoor/outdoor facility are entitled to reimbursement of medical facility.
6. The applicant, a retired Assistant Post Master underwent emergency medical treatment. In such circumstances issue whether he is entitled to medical treatment or should have taken prior permission is irrelevant when treatment has been rendered in emergency situation.
What is relevant is only the fact that the applicant underwent treatment. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Mohan Prakash vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.10110 of 2016) has held that employees are entitled to reimbursement of indoor medical bills due to 6 hospitalization. This issue has also been answered by this Tribunal in order dated 19.01.2023 in O.A. No.714/2020 and others OAs. Holding that in view of Article 21 of Constitution of India, fundamental right for decent, meaningful life includes indoor treatment.
7. Following the case laws cited supra, I find that the O.A. has merit. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make the requisite payment within four weeks of this order. Interest @6% p.a. is allowed on the period of delay i.e. from 15.09.2023 till date of reimbursement of applicant's medical claim of Rs.4,40,231/-
8. The O.A. is allowed. No order to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) MEMBER (A) /kr/