Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dalip Kumar Sudi vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 14 October, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.1285 of 2011
New Delhi this the 14th day of October, 2011
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Dalip Kumar Sudi,
S/o Sh. K.L.Sudi,
R/o Village Jogi Wala Chowk,
P.O. Badripur, Distt. Dehradun
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
Union of India through the Secretary,
Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi
The Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road,
Kolkatta
3. The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Dehradun
(By Advocate: Shri V.S.R. Krishna)
Respondents
O R D E R
This application is directed against the Respondents Communication dated 23.10.2010 as at Annexure A-1 whereby the applicants medical claim forwarded to OFB has been returned stating that as per provision contained in Note 2(ii) below Rule 1 of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, the Central Government Servants who are on leave or deputation abroad are not covered under the CS (MA) Rules, 1944,
2. The applicant was in Bangkok (Thailand) with the prior approval/permission of the department when on 26/27.11.2008 he became seriously ill due to pus collection around the esophagus and pheumonitis due to fish bone for which he needed urgent surgery in the hospital, otherwise it might to have led to death as is clear from the medical certificate issued by the competent authorities. The applicant claims that there was no time to come back to India for treatment and as such he was left with no option but to get himself admitted in the hospital on 27.11.2008 and the operation was done on 29.11.2008 in Bumrungrad International Hospital. The total amount of the bills of the hospital was Rs.4, 72,389.00 in Bhat Currency. The applicant returned back to India and submitted his claim for medical reimbursement along with all the documents including the emergency certificate to the Office of Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 forwarded the claim of the applicant to Respondent No.2 for approval. The same has now been returned back by the office of Respondent No.3 vide the impugned Order. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present application assailing the impugned order as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and is liable to be quashed.
3. The respondents have opposed the application on the ground, inter alia, of it being premature having been filed without exhausting the available remedy. In Para 6 of the counter reply, the respondents have stated that the applicant has not exhausted any departmental remedy available. The respondents are not aware of any oral request made by the applicant. The applicant ought to have represented to the Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata and Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi before filing the petition in the Honble Tribunal which he did not do. The petition is liable to be dismissed only on this ground.
4. The applicant has filed a copy of Delhi High Court In O.P. Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors. ( 133(2006) Delhi Law Times 531 (DB). This is a case for medical reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his wife for having undergone operation for breast cancer in Washington DC during his deputation as Accounts Officer in Washington. It is seen therefrom that the medical claim of the applicant was allowed after obtaining approval of the Director General Health Scheme. The respondents have distinguished this case from the applicants case herein being on leave not on deputation. Nonetheless the fact remains that there appears to be a provision for relaxing the rule on compassionate ground as a special case after obtaining approval of the competent authority. Note 2(ii) below Rule 1 of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, as referred to in the impugned Order deals with the applicability of the rule to the Government servants who are on leave or deputation abroad.
5. The applicants counsel fairly conceded that no request for permission for medical reimbursement on compassionate ground as a special case has been made in the case. Confronted with the objection of the application being premature for having been filed without exhausting the available remedy, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks liberty to make an appropriate request to the competent authority in this regard within a fortnight and requests for direction to the respondents to consider the applicant representation as aforesaid within a fixed time frame whereupon further action, if necessary, may be initiated by the applicant in the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose this and submits that in all fairness, if any such request is made by the applicant, the same would be given due consideration in accordance with the rules.
6. In view of the aforesaid, on consensual basis, this application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to make an application to the Respondent/competent authority for grant of special permission for medical reimbursement and if necessary, by relaxing the rules having regard to the emergent situation in which the applicant had to undergo life saving operation during his leave abroad within two weeks hereof. If such an application is made by the applicant to the respondents, the respondents shall consider the same on merit in accordance with the applicable rules as well the points raised by the applicant in his application. In case the respondent/competent authority acceded to the applicants request they shall accord the necessary relief to the applicant in accordance with the applicable rules. If not so, they shall inform the applicant of their decision through a reasoned and speaking order within two months of the receipt of the applicants request.
7. The application is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /usha/