Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India vs Satyanarayan Bhargava Son Of Late Shri ... on 24 July, 2020
Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Writ No. 3067/2020
1. Union of India, through Secretary to the Government of
India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication
and Information Technology, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001
2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Sardar Patel
Marg, Jaipur- 302001
3. Post Master General, Rajasthan Southern Region, Ajmer
305001
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kota Postal
Division, Kota-324001
----Petitioners
Versus
Satyanarayan Bhargava Son of Late Shri L.N. Bhargava, aged
about 63 Years, Resident of House No. 2, Mansarovar Extention
Colony, Behind Royal Park Colony, Raipura, Kota -324003, and
retired on 31-03-2017 from the Post of Sub Post Master,
Industrial Estate Post Office, Kota, Postal Division, Kota-324001
----Respondent
For Petitioners : Mr. Bhupender Pareek Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Chandra Bhan Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal Advocate.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Order 24/07/2020 Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the original application filed by the (Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 09:28:00 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-3067/2020] respondent. In-fact, Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were not applicable to retired government officials.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 187, wherein, it was held as under:-
"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. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals (Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 09:28:00 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-3067/2020] concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court."
Respondent had filed the original application seeking medical bills reimbursement. It was the case of the respondent that he was a substantive employee of the Department of Posts and retired from services on 31.03.2017. Respondent suffered a sudden attack of Paralysis and, therefore, in an emergent condition, his family members got him admitted in Jaiswal Hospital & Neuro Institute, Kota, where he remained admitted from 05.12.2017 to 11.12.2017 as an indoor patient. A bill of Rs. 51,681/- was raised by the hospital authorities towards expenditure incurred on the respondent's treatment. The respondent submitted the said bill with the petitioners-authorities for its reimbursement. However, respondent's claim was declined by Petitioner No. 3 vide letter dated 25.05.2018. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a request for reimbursement of his medical bills before Petitioner No. 2 on 27.06.2018, which was rejected vide letter dated 17.08.2018 stating therein that the provisions of the Rules were not applicable in the case of a retired employee.
Learned Tribunal, while considering the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Rules were not applicable to retired government officials, has observed as under:-
"9. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the respondents, that the provisions of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 are not applicable on retired Government employees, is concerned, we do no find any substance in the said (Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 09:28:00 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-3067/2020] argument as well. The controversy with regard to applicability of the provisions of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 upon retirees of Postal Department has already been set at rest by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal. The view taken by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in this regard has already been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has further been followed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ram Swarup Gupta (OA No.786/2012 decided on 27.08.2013) and Ramji Lal Sharma Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No.657/2016 decided on 22.11.2017). The applicant's case cannot be treated differently by the respondents and, therefore, he is entitled to get the reimbursement of medical bills in accordance with the provisions of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to controvert the observations made by the Tribunal reproduced hereinabove.
Thus, so far as the controversy with regard to applicability of the Rules on retired government officials is concerned, the same has already been set at rest by the Apex Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that learned Tribunal had, thus, rightly allowed the case of the respondent seeking reimbursement of medical bills towards expenditure incurred on his treatment. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J
Manoj Narwani/65/
(Downloaded on 28/07/2020 at 09:28:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)