Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dharam Chand vs Garrison Engineer on 16 February, 2024
1- O.A. No. 470/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/00470/2023
Pronounced on: 16.02.2024
Reserved on: 14.02.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Dharam Chand (Retired as "Mate/carp" MES No. 502956) aged about 69
years son of Sh. Taru Ram resident of village Jakhwad Jogia, Post Office
Sujanpur, Tehsil and District Pathankot, Punjab PIN 145023
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rahul Verma)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, 101-A, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
New Delhi-110010.
3. Garrison Engineer (West) Pathankot o/o AAO (P), Pathankot -
145001.
4. The AAO (Pay) WC, Pathankot.
... .Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) Quashing of order dated 07.02.2023 whereby the claim of the applicant for medical reimbursement has been rejected.2- O.A. No. 470/2023
(ii) A direction be issued to the respondents to reimburse the medical bills amounting to Rs.4,14,314-/ along with interest.
(iii) A direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ on account of harassment, mental tension, agony and Rs. 50,000/-
on account of litigation and miscellaneous expenses incurred thereto.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant retired as mate/Carp from Garrison Engineer (West) Pathankot. He was got admitted in Chauhan Multispeciality & Trauma Centre, Pathankot in emergent conditions when he felt shortness of breath and body pain. He remained hospitalized from 21.03.2022 to 24.03.2022 and spent Rs.69,118/- on his treatment. He again got admitted in the same hospital on 21.06.2022 in emergency situation. He remained hospitalized from 21.06.2022 to 25.06.2022 and incurred an amount of Rs.71568/- on his treatment. On 18.07.2022, the applicant suffered severe pain in chest and difficulty in breathing, so he was rushed to Tegor Hospital & Heart Care Centre (P) Ltd. Jalandhar. The doctors advised heart surgery and he was operated upon on 26.07.2022. He remained hospitalized from 18.07.2022 to 01.08.2022 and he spent an amount of Rs.2,27,080/- for his treatment. Again, he was got admitted in the hospital on 17.08.2022 to 20.08.2022 for which he incurred an amount of Rs.46,548/-. In all, the applicant spent a total amount of Rs.4,14,314/- for his treatment taken in four spells. He submitted his bills amounting to Rs. 4,14,314/- for reimbursement. However, the same were returned and his claim for medical reimbursement was 3- O.A. No. 470/2023 rejected vide letter dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure A-1) by Respondent No. 3.
3. The applicant contended that the similar claim of medical reimbursement of other similarly situated persons like Som Parkash Saini, Rajinder Singh gurain, Tilak Raj Saini etc. have been acceded to and their medical expenses have been reimbursed. Reference has been made to the decision dated 23.01.2008of this Tribunal in the case of Som Parkash Saini Vs. Union of India & Another (O.A. No. 37/PB/2006) upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court vide judgment dated 13.0.12009.
4. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the applicant, as per his option, is drawing medical allowance @ Rs.1000/- per month. His claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected on the ground that as per CSMA Rules 1944, do not apply to the retired Government official and if he is getting medical allowance with his pension, he is not entitled to medical claims.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions, as made in the O.A. Reliance has been placed on a decision dated 06.11.2023 of this Tribunal in the case of Suman Sachdev Vs. Union of India & Others.
6. I have gone through the pleadings and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both sides.
7. The admitted facts are that the applicant is a retiree, who is drawing monthly medical allowance along with his pension. The medical 4- O.A. No. 470/2023 bills amounting to Rs.4,14,314/- submitted by the applicant for reimbursement has been returned to the applicant and his claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that the applicant being a retiree is getting medical allowance, therefore, he is not covered under CS(MA) Rules and not entitled to get reimbursement of his medical bills.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Gwalior Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ram Swarup Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 202/167/2014 decided on 12.05.2014).
9. I have perused the decision aforementioned. The applicant therein is a retiree, who is getting fixed medical allowance and his claim for reimbursement was rejected on the same ground by the respondents that he being a retiree is not covered under CS (MA) Rules 1944. This stand of the respondents was held illegal by the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Braham Prakash Vs. Union of India and Ors (CWP No. 10110/2016 decided on 09.04.2019). The O.A. was allowed in terms of the law settled by the Hon‟ble High Court in the aforementioned case which is extracted hereunder:-
"8. In the present context, we may refer to the Nabhi's Compendium of Orders under Central Government Health Scheme where texts of various orders passed by the Central Government have been incorporated. At page 206 of this book, text of DOP & PW. O.M. No.45/57/97-P & OW dated December 19, 1997 has been given which is as under:-
"The undersigned is directed to state that in pursuance of Government's decision on the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission 5- O.A. No. 470/2023 announced in this Department's resolution No.45/86/97-P & P.W. (A) dated 30-9-1977, sanction of the President is hereby accorded to the grant of fixed medical allowance @ Rs.100 p.m to Central Government pensioners/family pensioners/residing in areas not covered by Central Government Health Scheme administered by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and corresponding Health Schemes administered by other Ministries / Departments for their retired employees for meeting expenditure on day-to-day medical expenses that do not require hospitalization."
9. A perusal of the above text makes it clear that fixed medical allowance @ Rs.100/- p.m is given to the Central Government pensioners residing in areas not covered by CGHS for meeting day-to-day medical expenses which do not require hospitalization. Therefore, as the petitioner was getting fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month for meeting day-to-day medical expenses that do not require hospitalization, he is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses for his heart ailment for which he remained hospitalized in Escorts Hospital, New Delhi, and had to undergo by-pass surgery.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner during his treatment in Escorts Hospital, New Delhi, equal to the rates of A.I.I.M.S, New Delhi."
10. From the perusal of the pleadings of this case and the judgment aforementioned, I find that the present case of the applicant is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the judgment aforementioned of the Hon‟ble High Court. This Tribunal also recently allowed similar claim in the case of Anandi Devi Vs. Union of India & Others (O.A. No. 1286/2021 decided on 06.11.2023). Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.02.2023 is declared illegal in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Braham Parkash (supra). The respondents are directed to process the claim of the applicant for reimbursement and make necessary payment within a 6- O.A. No. 470/2023 period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, there shall be no order so as to costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) „mw‟