Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Suresh Chandra Shukla Son Of Late Sri ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 14 August, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application 332/00063/2015 Reserved on 12.8.2015 Pronounced on 14.8.15 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) Suresh Chandra Shukla son of late Sri Ambika Prasad Shukla aged about 62 years r/o B-29, Sector O, Aliganj, Lucknow. Applicant By Advocate:- Applicant present in person Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. 2. Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi through its chairman. 3. Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow. 4. Commissioner , Central Excise, Lucknow. Respondents By Advocate: Sri R.P.S.Chauhan ORDER
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
i) to issue an order or direction directing the respondent to re-imburse the amount of medical claim, which has already been sanctioned to the applicant forthwith.
ii) to issue an order or direction directing the respondents to pay interest also @ 18% on the amount of medical claim (already sanctioned) from the date of filing of the medical clam till the date of actual payment.
iii) to issue any other relief which this Honble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv) to allow the application with cost.
2. The applicant joined as Inspector in the Central Excise Department in 1979. In 2012, the CGHS permitted the treatment of applicants wife at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. In May, 2012 itself, the applicant was sanctioned an advance of Rs. two lakhs and permitted for consultation and liver transplant at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. Subsequently, the applicant again requested for medical advance and thereafter liver transplant of his wife was conducted. Thereafter, the applicant submitted medical claim. This was done while the applicant was in service. Subsequently, the applicant superannuated on 31.12.2012. When nothing was heard from the respondents, the applicant preferred the present O.A. and during the pendency of the O.A., an amount of Rs. 33,41,638/- was paid to the applicant vide cheque dated 3.3.2015 which was received by the applicant on 20.3.2015. Now by means of the present O.A, the applicant is seeking interest @ 18% on the amount of medical claim from the date of submitting the medical claim till the date of actual payment. The applicant relied upon following decisions of the Honble High Court:-
i) Vajay Bahadur Singh Vs.State of U.P. and three others (Writ Petition No. 48060 of 2013 decided on 11.10.2013)
ii) Daljit Singh Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and others (Writ Petition (c) No. 16651/2006 decided on January 10, 2013).
iii) Kishan Chand Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. and others (Writ Petition No.(c ) No. 889/2007 decided on 12.3.2010) wherein the Honble High Court allowed the interest on delayed payment of medical claim and cost of petition as well.
3. On behalf of the respondents , detailed counter reply is filed, through which it is indicated that on account of paucity of funds under medical head, the payment of the said amount could not be made to the applicant within time and for seeking funds the respondents written letters to the higher authorities. Thereafter a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs are allotted in January, 2015 and the claim of applicant was settled and he was paid a sum of Rs. 33,41,638/- through cheque dated 3.3.2015. Apart from this, it is also indicated by the respondents that delay is not deliberate, it was on account of administrative reasons , as such the applicant is not entitled for any interest and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed as the same has rendered in-fructuous.
4. On behalf of the applicant, Rejoinder Reply is filed and through Rejoinder Reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated and denied the contents of the counter reply.
5. Heard the applicant in person and learned counsel for respondents and perused the records.
6. The applicant joined the respondents organization as Inspector in 1979. He being the beneficiary of CGHS facility, he is entitled for medical reimbursement. The applicants wife was suffering from Hepatitis C virus and she was under the treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and during the said time, the applicant was advised to take the patient on urgent basis to a centre/hospital where the facility of liver transplant is available and accordingly, the applicant contacted and took his wife to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. The applicant was sanctioned medical advance of Rs. 2 lakhs for consultation and also requested to CMO,CGHS ,Lucknow for grant of permission to liver transplant of his wife at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon which was granted to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant requested for further advance but the same was not paid to the applicant. The applicant being helpless , borrowed the money and got his wife treated and thereafter, applicant submitted the total bills of Rs. 35,41,638/- but when nothing was paid, the applicant made number of request to the authorities and also tried to approach the higher authorities for early reimbursement of medical claim but when nothing was heard, he preferred the present O.A.
7. It is also to be indicated that during the pendency of the O.A., the respondents issued a cheque of Rs. 33,41,638/- towards the full and final settlement of medical claim of the applicant but the applicant being aggrieved by the careless approach and attitude of the respondents, received the said payment under protest and has indicated that he is claiming interest on the delayed payment of the said amount and harassment which is caused to him. The respondents also took long time for releasing the amount for medical reimbursement.
8. The Honble High Court in the case of Vajay Bahadur Singh Vs.State of U.P. and three others (supra) observed as under:-
42. The payment shall be made, as directed above, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The entire amount, as directed above, shall attract interest @ 10% p.a. The petitioner shall also be entitlted to cost which quantify to rs. 25,000/-.
9. In the case of Daljit Singh Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and others (supra), the Honble High court observed that a person cannot be denied actual medical costs, and there has to be reimbursement of the actual medical expenses incurred. The Honble High Court further observed as under:-
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to give medical reimbursement to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,41,399/- alongwith interest at 8% per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The amount be paid within six weeks. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
10. Honble High Court in the case of Kishan Chand Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. and others, observed as under:-
Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the State has a constitutional obligation to bear the medical expenses of Government employees while in service and also after they are retired. Clearly in the present case by taking a very inhuman approach, these officials have denied the grant of medical reimbursement to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court.
10. The respondents are directed to pay the said medical claim of the petitioner along with 18% interest from the date of submission of his bill. The said payment shall be made by the respondent within one month from the date of this order. Additional costs of Rs. 10,000/- is also imposed on the respondents for causing delay in making the said payment to the petitioner.
11. It is explicitly clear that the applicant submitted the final medical claim in December 2012 but the actual payment has been made to the applicant vide cheque dated 3.3.2015, as such respondents made delay in making payment of medical reimbursement to the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled for interest.
12. Considering the observations made by the Honble High Court as stated above and also on the basis of facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction upon the respondents to pay interest @ 8% per annum to the applicant on delayed payment of medical claim from the date of submitting of medical claim till the date of actual payment. The same shall be done within a period of three months.
13. With the above observations, O.A. stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(Navneet Kumar) Member (J) HLS/-