Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rekha Sharma vs Post Punjab Circle on 8 April, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 1230/2022
Chandigarh, this the 8th day of April, 2024
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Rekha Sharma d/o Late Sh. Narinder Kumar, aged 40 years, r/o
House No. 38, Pahadi Market, Nangal Township, Tehsil Nangal,
Distt. Rupnagar, Punjab-140124 1. (D/o Late Smt Usha Devi @
Usha Rani ( Retd. Postman)
2. Vandana d/o Late Sh. Narinder Kumar, rio Village Shankaur. Tehsil
Nurpur Bedi, Distt Anandpur Sahib, Punjab-140117 (D/o Late Smt
Usha Devi Usha Rani (Retd. Postman).
Both the applicants are legal heirs of Late Smt. Usha Devi @ Usha
Rani (Retd. Postman)
....Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. K.B. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary (Postal), Govt. of India.
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology.
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
110001. Email ID: [email protected].
2. Director General of Posts, Department of Posts Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001. Email ID
[email protected]
3. Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector
17-E Chandigarh 160017. Email ID: cpmg [email protected].
2
4. Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan, Dr.
Bhim Rao Ambedkar Marg, Central Ridge Reserve Forest, New
Delhi-110001.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh Division, GPO Sector
17. Chandigarh 160017. Email ID: sspo [email protected].
6. Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi East Division, Mayur Vihar,
New Delhi-110051.
7. Director of Postal Accounts, through its Senior Accountants Officer,
New Model Town Kapurthala-144602
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
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) That the impugned orders dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure A-1). 11.10.2021 (Annexure A-2) be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the respondents be directed to reimburse the medical expenses to the applicants amounting to Rs. 1,12,880/- incurred on the medical treatment of their mother, after her retirement from service, along with interest as per rules."
2. The applicants are daughters of Late Smt. Usha Devi @ Usha Rani, Retd. Postman and are legal heirs of Late Smt. Usha Devi @ Usha 3 Rani, Retd Postman. The mother of applicants Smt. Usha Devi, retired as a Postman from from the office of respondent no. 6 on 31.05.2013. After the retirement, the mother of the applicants was residing at Nangal Township (Distt Ropar) which is a non-CGHS Station and was drawing her pension from Ropar, Head Office.
3. The mother of the applicants Usha Devi, (Retd. Postman) complaint of breathlessness and in an emergent situation, she was immediately taken to Tagore Hospital and Heart Care Centre, Jalandhar where several tests were conducted, thereafter, she was admitted on 02.12.2019. After taking medical treatment, she was discharged on 05.12.2019. However, she was not showing any recovery and soon after her discharge mother of the applicants died on the same day, few hours later after reaching home. For the aforesaid treatment, the mother of the applicants incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,12,820/-.
4. The applicant No.1 vide her application dated 07.02.2020 submitted medical Bills amounting to Rs. 1,12,820 to the respondent No. 6 for reimbursement of medical bills. The aforesaid application (A-6) for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the treatment of their mother's treatment was returned by the respondent no. 6 with the remark "rtd. as this is pensioner case and the same is not dealt with this office".
5. The applicants served a legal notice dated 26.08.2021, upon the respondents through Counsel for reimbursement of medical expenses (Rs. 1,12,820/-) incurred on the treatment of their mother's treatment. The claim of the applicants for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the treatment of their mother has been 4 rejected by the respondents vide orders dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure A-1) and 11.10.2021 (Annexure A-2) on the ground that pensioner was getting Fixed Medical Allowance along with her pension, therefore, reimbursement of medical claim is not admissible.
6. The applicants placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs Mohan Lal Gupta, decided on 17.1.2018, SCT, 2018(1) and order of this Tribunal in the case of Rattan Chand Bhulal vs Union of India and Others, O.A. No 060/540/2020. Applicants submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, they are entitled to Medical Reimbursement. 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 applicants submitted that as per judgments referred herein above the retired pensioners residing in non-CGHS area cannot be deprived of medical facilities in their old age.
7. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant and supporting the impugned orders dated 23.09.2021 and 11.10.2021 stating that pensioner was getting Fixed Medical Allowance along with her pension, therefore, reimbursement of medical claim is not admissible
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material on records and gone through the judgments. 5
9. The M.A No. 2112 of 2022 has been preferred praying for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the Original Application has been filed. It has been pleaded that as the applicants are having very limited source of income as the applicant No. 1 is only getting family pension being unmarried daughter. Also the applicant No. 2 is a widow lady and her survival is dependent on her in laws and she has no source of income. Due to such financial constraints, the applicants could not file the present O.A. in time and delay of 54 days has been occurred and the same is not intentional rather bona fide one. Hence, he prays for condoning the delay of 54 days in filing the application. Learned counsel for the respondents contested the prayer for condonation 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. During the relevant period the entire world was fighting with the Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also order for condonation of delay in filing cases during the pandemic period. Since the applicant has also satisfactorily explained the delay of 54 days, therefore, M.A is allowed. The delay of 54 days in filing instant O.A is condoned.
10. The plea that pensioner was getting Fixed Medical Allowance along with her pension, therefore, reimbursement of medical claim is not admissible by the respondents 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 6 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. 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 pensioner was getting Fixed Medical Allowance along with her pension, therefore, reimbursement of medical claim is not admissible 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].
11. In view of the legal position as discussed herein above, the impugned orders dated 23.09.2021 and 11.10.2021 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same are 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 his treatment, 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) ms*