Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Bahadur Singh vs National Institute Of Foundry And Forge ... on 19 July, 2016
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Virender Singh, Shree Chandrashekhar
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
---
L.P.A. No. 614 of 2015
---
Vijay Bahadur Singh, son of Late Sita Ram Singh, Resident of House No.A-II
91(T), near Bus Stand at and P.O.& P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
.... Appellant
Versus
(1) National Institute of Foundry & Forge Technology, Hatia, P.O. Hatia,
P.S. Jagannath nagar, Ranchi-834003
(2) Director, NIFFT, Resident of Director's Bungalow, NIFFT Colony,
Hatia, P.O.-NIFFT Campus, P.S. Jagannathpur, Ranchi-83403
.... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
------
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate
-----
08/ 19th July, 2016
Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.:
Dismissal of the writ petition, seeking medical reimbursement for
cataract operation of his wife, has compelled the appellant-writ petitioner
(hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) who was working as an
Assistant Registrar with National Institute of Foundry & Forge Technology,
Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred to as NIIFT) to prefer the present Letters
Patent Appeal.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner-in person referring to Central Services (Medical
Attendance) Rules, 1944 submits that the rules do not require an employee to
seek prior permission or sanction of the controlling authority before availing
medical facility in any of the Central Government/ State Government hospitals
and the hospitals recognized by the State Government/ CGHS. The only
limitation prescribed under the rules is that reimbursement for medical
expenditure would be at the rate fixed by the Government under CGHS Rules,
Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 or actual expenditure
incurred, which ever is less.
.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that his wife namely, Shanti Devi visited
Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital, Ranchi on 13.06.2011 and the date for
operation was fixed on 28.06.2011. His wife was admitted in the hospital on
27.06.2011for operation. The petitioner submitted bill which was duly certified and countersigned, on 30.06.2011. Incidentally, the petitioner superannuated from the service on the same day. The Director, NIFFT, Ranchi vide letter dated 27.06.2012, referring to Rule 11 of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 declined reimbursement of medical bill on the ground that he had availed medical services from a private hospital for which permission from competent authority was essential under Rule 11 of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.
5. In the counter affidavit, the respondent -NIFFT has pleaded that under the provision of GI.MH O.M.F. NO. S/14025/7/2000-MS Dated 28th March, 2000 and F.No.S-14021/06/2005-MS dated 4th January, 2007 Central Government employees and their families may be permitted to avail the medical facility in any of the Central Government/ State Government hospitals and the hospital recognized under the State Government/ CGHS Rules/CS(MS)Rules 1944. It is further pleaded that in case of consultation with AMA (Authorized Medical Attendant) other than the appointed one, permission from the controlling authority is required, which the petitioner has not obtained. It is further pleaded that the petitioner submitted medical bill for reimbursement of Rs.21,000/- on 08.06.2012 whereas, cataract operation was performed on 27.06.2011 that is, after an inordinate delay.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent -NIFFT reiterating the stand taken before the Writ Court, submits that without taking prior permission of the competent authority, who could have applied his mind for judging the necessity of change of AMA, the petitioner got his wife treated at Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital, Ranchi, and therefore, he is not entitled for reimbursement of medical bill.
.
7. In the counter affidavit, the respondent -NIFFT has not denied that Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital, Ranchi is CGHS empanelled hospital. It has also not been disputed that the said hospital falls under the category of AMA. Rule 2 (12) of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 permits an employee and his family members to avail medical facilities in any of the CGHS recognized hospitals. Though the main objection of the respondent is that the petitioner did not take permission of the competent authority, either before the Writ Court or before this Court, the respondent -NIFFT has failed to point out under which provision prior permission is required. Further, the respondent -NIFFT pleaded that the petitioner did not consult the authorized medical attendant however, again it has failed to disclose the name of the authorized medical attendant. In paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit, the respondent -NIFFT has averred as under :
"10. That in the instant case, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh took treatment of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi in M/s Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital empanelled under CGHS during the period from 13.06.2011 to 29.06.2011. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant obtained prior permission from the controlling authority who could apply his mind in judging the case necessitating change of AMA if required or not. It may be mentioned that the appellant was himself holding the post of Assistant Registrar, an administrative post in the institute during that period who was supposed to enforce the applicability of Government Rules and orders which he himself violated."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In view of the admission in paragraph no.10, to the effect that Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital, Ranchi is empanelled under CGHS, the objection raised by the respondent -NIFFT that prior permission of the controlling authority was not taken is apparently frivolous. The plea taken by the respondent NIFFT runs counter to its own circular dated 21.01.2004 vide Annexure-2, which reads as under :
"CIRCULAR This is to notify for information of all employees of the Institute that the Hospitals mentioned here-under are recognised Hospitals for the .
medical treatment for self and entitled family members.
1. Hospitals recognised by the State Government/ CGHS/ CSMA Rules 1944.
2. Hospitals maintained by Public Sector under takings/ Projects.
3. Hospitals maintained by local bodies and recognised under CSMA Rules.
4. Port trust hospitals.
The availing of medical facilities in aforesaid hospitals is subjected to the conditions that the medical expenses will be re-imbursed at the rate fixed by the Government under the CGHS Rules/CSMA rules, 1944 or the actual expenditure incurred whichever is less. So far as the Hospitals maintained by public sector under takings are concerned, the re-imbursement of expenses incurred by the Institute employee for treatment in these hospitals/dispensary will be made in accordance wit the schedule of charges of this hospital/dispensary taking into consideration the rates prescribed under C.G.H.S. The employees of the Institute may take medical treatment in any of the hospitals mentioned above and get the expenses re-imbursed as per rules. Those employees who have already opted for H.E.C. Plant Hospital will continue to avail the facilities till present arrangement is not over and further orders for them is not issued.
This circular is in continuation of circular dated 12.1.2004. The content of circular is illustrative and for processing the cases, provisions mentioned under CSMA Rules 1944 shall prevail upon.
This issue by the orders of the competent authority Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (Admn.) I/c"
9. The learned Writ Court proceeded in the matter on the premises as if prior permission for availing medical facilities is required in every case except, where the condition of the employee or his dependant is critical. The approach of the learned Writ Court was apparently incorrect. As noticed above, under the Rules, the petitioner was not required to take prior permission for cataract operation of his wife. If the contention of the respondent -NIFFT is accepted, it would amount to requiring every employee to seek prior permission of the competent authority even in cases of minor ailments such as cold, fever etc.
10. At this stage, Rule 11 of Central Service (M.A.) Rules, 1944, on the basis of which claim of the petitioner has been rejected, needs to be noticed. It reads as under :
"11. (1) A Government servant shall be eligible to obtain medical treatment outside India or, as the case may be, to claim reimbursement of the cost of medical treatment obtained inside or outside India in accordance with the provisions of this rule.
(2) A Government servant desirous of availing of medical treatment outside India may make an application through the Department/Ministry to which the Government servant is attached to the Standing Committee established under this rule in the form specified by the Standing Committee.
(3) A Government servant desiring to avail of medical .
treatment outside India for himself or for a member of his family for any treatment specified in the Table below shall, subject to the other provisions of this rule, be eligible for medical treatment outside India.
Table
1. Complex/high risk Cardio Vascular Surgery cases for treatment at Centres with extensive experience;
2. Bone Marrow Transplant;
3. Complex Medical and Oncological Disorder, such as Leukaemia and Neoplastic conditions;
4. Complex high risk cases in Micro Vascular an Neuro Surgery for treatment at Centres with extensive experience;
5. Treatment of extremely complex ailments other than those mentioned above which in the opinion of Standing Committee can only be treated abroad and fall in the high risk category. (4) It shall be competent for the Central Government to review from time to time the list of treatment facilities as specified in the Table to subrule(3) and make such additions or deletions as it may deem fit by notification in the Official Gazette.
(5) The Central Government may for purposes of this rule, constitute a Standing Committee consisting of
(a) the DirectorGeneral of Health Services in the Ministry of Health in the Central Government,
(b) the DirectorGeneral of Armed Forces Medical Services.
(c) The DirectorGeneral of the Indian Council of Medical Research, and
(d) The Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare(Convener), for purposes of considering and recommending to the Central Government cases for medical treatment outside India.
(6) On receipt of an application for medical treatment outside India, the Standing Committee may if after due consideration, satisfied that the ailment or treatment can be treated only outside India, issue a certificate to the concerned Department or Ministry to which the applicant Government Servant is attached conveying its approval of the application and the concerned Department or Ministry shall, on the strength of that certificate incur necessary expenditure in getting the Government servant concerned or the member of his family treated outside India in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Standing Committee.
(7) It shall be competent for the Central Government to authorize reimbursement of expenditure on medical treatment obtained outside India, if it is satisfied that the prior approval could not be obtained by the Central Government servant due to circumstances beyond control:
Provided that the Government servant fulfills all other conditions relating to medical treatment outside India under this rule.
(8) The Standing Committee may, if it is satisfied that in the interest of the Government servant or the member of his family obtaining treatment abroad it is essential so to do, recommend one attendant to accompany the Government servant or the member of his family, as the case may be, and the expenditure so incurred shall also be eligible for reimbursement.
(9) Where the Standing Committee, on receipt of an application for medical treatment outside India consider that .
adequate facility for treatment of the ailment sought to be treated is available in any medical institution within India, it shall record such a finding and authorize treatment of such ailment in such medical institution within India whereupon the cost of such treatment shall be reimbursed.
(10) For purposes of subrule (9), the Ministry of Health in consultation with the Standing Committee shall, from time to time, notify the names of such institutions along with the ailments and the types of treatment available in such institutions.
(11) The scale of expenditure and the eligibility for treatment for which a Government servant or a member of his family shall be entitled, shall be identical to the scale of expenditure and the eligibility of an official of the Indian Foreign Service of the corresponding grade in the Ministry of External Affairs under any Assisted Medical Attendance Scheme for the time being in force."
11. The heading of Rule 11 Central Service (M.A.) Rules, 1944 itself reveals that the said rule is attracted only in case of "treatment outside India". Rule 11, apparently, cannot be enforced in case of the petitioner.
12. Considering the facts noticed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the respondent -NIFFT has denied lawful claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical bill of Rs.21,000/- and he was compelled to approach this Court. The petitioner, though, has prayed for award of interest @ 18 % p.a., we quantify the amount of compensation to Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid along with the principal claim, within four weeks.
13. The instant Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
(Virender Singh, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Sudhir/SI A.F.R.