Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gautam Dutt vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No.12869 of 2008.doc -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.12869 of 2008
Date of Decision: 08.07.2010
****
Gautam Dutt . . . . Petitioner
VS.
Union of India and others . . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. BPS Virk, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. AK Bansal, Advocate for the respondents
*****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioner - a retired Administrative-cum-
Accounts Officer impugn the orders dated 28.11.2007 & 09.01.2008 (Annexures P2 & P3, respectively), whereby he has been denied medical reimbursement for a sum of Rs.171712/- incurred on his treatment for 'pituitary adenoma' (brain tumour) on the ground that he did not avail the Central Government Health Service facility. (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and records perused.
CWP No.12869 of 2008.doc -2-(3). The petitioner retired from the post of Accounts Officer from ETDC Mohali on 31.01.1993. He was later on diagnosed to be afflicted with brain tumour and remained hospitalized in PGIMER Chandigarh from 09.02.2007 to 19.03.2007 during which he was operated upon also. The petitioner incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,71,712/- on his treatment in the PGIMER Chandigarh.
(4). The respondents have denied reimbursement on the plea that since the petitioner is a resident of Mohali, he ought to have undertaken the treatment in PGI Chandigarh after seeking reference from the Government Dispensary at Sector 45, Chandigarh. The respondents have maintained that neither the Central Service (Medial Attendance) Rules, 1944 are applicable in the case of the petitioner nor he ever opted to be governed by these Rules. The respondents have also averred that the claim for reimbursement of medical bills of retirees like the petitioner lies with the Director General of Health Services irrespective of the fact whether he avails the CGHS facility or not. According to the respondents, the petitioner ought to have CWP No.12869 of 2008.doc -3- submitted his claim to the Regional Office of the Director General of Health Services. In the next breath, the respondent allege that the petitioner has not availed the 'scheme' whereunder the pensioners are paid Rs.100/- per month as Medical Allowance.
(5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the series of evasive and vague objections raised by the respondents are nothing but a concerted effort to cloak the petitioner's indefeasible right to seek medical reimbursement under the Rules. The fact that the petitioner did not opt for the medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month, can in no way deprive him of the benefit of medical reimbursement through the Director General of Health Services, which the respondents themselves have not controverted in para 3 of their reply/affidavit. The condition of prior approval from DGHS, if any, was a curable procedural irregularity and the respondents ought to have got it rectified by sending the petitioner's medical bills to the Director General Health Services for the requisite approval. (6). In somewhat similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. Union CWP No.12869 of 2008.doc -4- of India and others (CWP No.6559 of 2006) decided on 13.03.2008 (Annexure P5) relied upon the instructions issued by the Government of India and ruled as follows:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
"In the written statement, it has been
specifically mentioned by the respondents that as per the provisions contained in the Rules, the pensioners who are not residing in the areas covered by the CGHS, are entitled to medical allowance at the rate of Rs.100/- per month; meaning thereby that the petitioner had to perforce opt fixed medical allowance as the area where he was residing was not covered by the CGHS. As per text of MH & FWOH No.S-
14025/4/96 M.S. dated June 05, 1998, reproduced above, in order to avoid any hardship regarding availing of medical facilities by the pensioners in their old age, the Central Government decided to extend the implementation of the Rules to its pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas as recommended by the Pay Commission.
However, the responsibility of administering the Rules has been left to the respective Ministries/Departments as in the case of serving employees covered under the Rules. For those opting fort medical facilities i.e. fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- under the Rules, as is in the case of the petitioner, the scrutiny of the claims for medical reimbursement is to be CWP No.12869 of 2008.doc -5- done by the parent office as in the case of serving employees and the payment would also have to be made by them. It has also been clearly mentioned in the above-quoted text that the beneficiaries of the Rules would be entitled to avail of hospitalization facilities as provided under these Rules."
(Emphasis applied)
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
(7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is
allowed; the respondents are directed to send the medical bill(s) submitted by the petitioner to the Director General Health Services, if so required, under the Scheme for approval. In case the medical bills have been returned to the petitioner, he may re-submit the same to respondent No.2, who shall then re-verify the same within a period of one month. The respondents shall reimburse the medical bills as per the Government of India Policy as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(8). Ordered accordingly.
(9). Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
CWP No.12869 of 2008.doc -6-
08.07.2010
vishal shonkar