Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
R C Gupta vs Union Of India on 29 August, 2017
(RESERVED ON 16.08.2017)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABADBENCH,ALLAHABAD
This th6q'i4.day of August, 2017.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 818 OF 2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH GUPTA, MEMBER (J\
1. Ram Charitra Gupta, aged about 65 years, S/o Shri
Ganga Ram Gupta, Resident of Mohalla Pipaldanda,
P.O. Kunraghat, Gorakhpur-273008, Retired Dy.
Post Master (H.S.G.I.), Gorakhpur, ~.0. in the
District Gorakhpur
............... Applicant
By Advocate: Sri P. Srivastava and Sri Ashish Srivastava
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India,
New Delhi.
2. T~e Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Training, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
'
110001.
4. Sr.
Supdt. Post Offices Gorakhpur Division
Gorakhpur '
··············••.Respondents
Advocate for the Respondents . Shn· S S .
· • nvastava
ORDER
The present Original Application h b
as een filed by
the applicant under Section-19 of the Ad . . .
m1n1strative
Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following- rPliPfc,• 2 {i) This Hon 'ble Tribunal may be pleased to Q. quash the impugned order dated D 23.05.2011 (Annexure 1 to this original application) passed by the respondent no. 4 whereby he has denied reimburseme~t of medical bills on the ground that there ts no provision for reimbursement of cost ~f medicine to the retire officials as there ts no CGHS Hospital available here.
(ii) This Hon 'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to reimburse !he total amount invested for treatment t.e., Rs. 2,63,281.18 may be paid to the applicant along with ad":issible_ interes~.
(iii) Any other relief, which thts Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is a retired Deputy Post Master from the office of the respondents under Gorakhpur Postal Division and is claiming medical reimbursement which is being denied to him mainly on the ground that CGHS facilities are not available at Gorakhpur. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a heart patient who has already been subjected to an angiography and angioplasty from Sanjai Gandi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow in the year 2008. In February 2011, the applicant again developed some serious complications due to his heart disease and taking into consideration the applicant's previous history, the Postal Dispensary Gorakhpur, from where the applicant was 3 availing medical facilities referred him to SGPGI, Luclmow for his treatment. The applicant was admitted in SGPGI on 14.02.2011 and after a successful angioplasty he was discharged on 17.02.2011. It has been further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a discharge bill verified by HOD of SGPGI, Luclmow was issued verifying that a total amount of Rs. 2,65,100/- has been spent by the applicant on his treatment. Another certificate in this regard was also issued by the HOD (Cardiology), SGPGI, Lucknow verifying that the ·applicant is suffering from heart disease and · was admitted in the institute from 14.02.2011 to 17.02.2011 as an indoor patient and a sum of Rs. 2,65,203.95 was received from the applicant. The Doctor had also certified the application of the applicant for claiming of refund of medical expenses including m connection with medical attendance of Central Government Servant and their family members. On the basis of the discharge slip, on 04.03.2011, the applicant submitted an application before the respondent no. 4 requesting for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during the treatment and coronary angiography. However, vide impugned order dated 23.05.2011, the applicant was denied the reimbursement of the medical expenses upon a highly discriminatory and baseless reason that as there are no CGHS Hospitals at 4 Gorakhpur and as such the amount invested for treatment by the applicant cannot be reimbursed. 2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant resides at Gorakhpur City where the Postal Dispensary exists and taking into consideration the severe heart trouble the applicant was facing, the Postal Dispensary referred him to SGPGI and as such whatever amount is incurred for treatment is liable to be reimbursed to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the persons retiring from the same Department from any cadre from Kanpur and Allahabad is allowed reimbursement of all medical facilities simultaneously, it is not available for those residing at other places. The Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India guarantees for no discrimination on account of person and place and hence the applicant cannot be denied the facility of medical reimbursement if he resides at Gorakhpur after his retirement. 2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that this Tribunal in a catena of cases has resolved the controversy holding that the employees b e1ongmg . to the Postal Department is entitled for medical renn . bursement after his superannuation and the med.ical reimbursement .
claim of retired Postal Department employees is reimbursable under cs (MA) Ru 1es 194 7. He placed his reliance on the judgement passed by Ch an d.igarh Bench 5 of this Tribunal in the case of H.S. Malik and others vs. Union of India, wherein the Tribunal held that the CGHS facilities are not available at every nick and corner of the country, hence it cannot be held to be a cause of discrimination and finally observed for reimbursernent of the medical expenses. The counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on similar controversy decided by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of J,alPlli Das T. Vasanu and others Vs. Union of India 2004 (2) ATJ 90, holding that the claim for indoor treatrnent had to be allowed. In another case the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Chand Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India 2005 (1) ATJ 31 held that the medical expenses to the retired employee for their indoor treatment has to be reimbursed and it cannot be denied or distinguished merely on the ground that the retired government employees was not a member of CGHS. In an another similar case, the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of u.P. Pensioners Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and others 2005 (a) ATJ 460 held that the retirees of the s ame government cannot be divided into categories for r etm . bursement of medical facilities. Learned counsel for the app1icant also placed reliance on the JU · dgement dated 17.11.2016 passed by this Tribunal in O•A • N0 • 8 57 of 2008 wherein this Tribunal quashed the impugned order and 6 directed the respondents to sanction and release the admissible amount to the applicant as medical reimbursement d an pay the same within three months.
The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted th th at e Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare dated 15.04.1997 decided for extension of CS (MA) Rules to pensioners residing in area not covered by CGHS. It has also been submitted that the Ministry of Health has also issued letter dated 05.06.1998 for giving one time option to the pensioners to opt their medical coverage under CGHS or CS (MA )Rule 1947. Lastly, the applicant submitted that as this Tribunal in a catena of cases has decided the issue that employees retired from postal department are entitled for reimbursement of medical bills, hence, it cannot be denied to the applicant on technical reasons.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit by which it has been stated that after the retirement of the applicant on 31.10.2006, the applicant is availing the facility from Postal Dispensary, Gorakhpur except reimbursement of medical bills. At Gorakhpur there is no Central Government Health Scheme Hospital and so he is not the member of the said scheme and there is no contribution of him to Central Government Health Scheme. The applicant had undergone treatment as indoor patient at Sanjay Gandhi 7 Post Graduate Institute, Lucknow for the period 14.02.2011 to 17.02.2011. After his treatment the applicant submitted his medical bills for the amount of Rs. 2,65,281.18/- before the respondents on 04.03.1011. The applicant has already retired on 31.10.2006 and he submitted his medicals bills in March 2011 for his treatment during the period 14.02.2011 to 17.02.2011 and as per rules, it is not admissible to him, as there is no Central Government Health Scheme and the applicant is also not a subscriber of the Central Government Health Scheme also. The applicant was informed regarding the same vide letter no. E-2/3/MR/Corr/2011- 12 dated 23.05.2011 issued by the department.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the O.A. and further stated that the decision passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 875/2008 is squarely covered the controversy involved in this O.A. The counsel further stated that earlier the applicant had heart attack on 20.4.2008 and was rushed to Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI) where he was subjected to Angiography and Angioplasty and was admitted in the hospital on 21.4.2008 and discharged on 23.4.200S and the cost spent on his treatment was RS. 1,40 ,731 ·31 / -. The applicant submitted the medical bills £or rerm . bursement.
However, respondents returned th e same stating . that 8 there is no provision in C.S. (M.A.) Rules, 1947 for reimbursement of medical expenses to pensioners of Postal Department. The Counsel for applicant further submitted that the applicant is a chronic heart patient and undergone by-pass surgery and ballooning while he was in service and the entire expenses was paid to the applicant by the Government. The respondents in the earlier O.A. stated that after retirement of a Postal employee, the respondents said that reimbursement of medical expenses is not possible under the Rule is arbitrary, illegal. The applicant further submitted that applicant is residing in Gorakhpur City where postal dispensary exists. He paid prescribed subscription and has got dispensary card from where he gets O.P.D. medicines but the cases like heart attack cannot be treated in O.P.D. and indoor treatment is required. Hence the applicant went to a Govt. hospital for his treatment and after verifying the bills from the proper authority, he submitted the bill of medical expenses incurred by him for reimbursement. In that case, the respondents have also filed Counter Affidavit and submitted that applicant has superannuated from service and after his retirement he is residing in Gorakhpur City where there is facility of postal dispensary is available for serving and retired employee of Department of Posts for indoor treatment. It is also stated that there is no provision in the Medical 9 Rules for reimbursement of bills of indoor treatment. Hence respondents have returned the claim of the applicant. The Tribunal after considering the entire facts th of the case, allowed the O.A. vide order dated 17 November , 2016 and directed the respondents to sanction and release the admissible amount to the applicant as medical reimbursement.
5. Thereafter, the applicant again fell ill and admitted m SGPGI on 24.2.2011 and after a successful angioplasty, he was discharged on 17.2.2011. The medical bill of the applicant was duly verified by the HOD of SGPGI and a sum of Rs. 2,65,100/- was spent on his treatment. The said bill was sent to the respondents who again took the same plea which they have taken in the earlier O.A. and returned the medical bill of the applicant stating that there is no provision for reimbursement of cost of medicine to the retired official. The counsel for applicant lastly submitted that order passed in 0.A. No. 857 /2008 is squarely covered the controversy involved in the present 0.A.
6. Learned counsel for respondents reiterated the facts which they have taken in the earlier O.A. No. 857 /2008.
7. After careful scrutiny of the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 857 /2008 on 17th November , 2016 by which the Court directed the respondents to reimburse the amount spent by the applicant on his 10 treatment in the SGPGI, Lucknow, I am of the view that this judgment is squarely covers the controversy involved in the present case also and on the same analogy, the applicant is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills spent by him on his treatment as indoor patient in SGPGI.
8. In view of the above, 0.A. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 23.5.2011 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to sanction and release the admissible amount of medical reimbursement to the applicant and pay the same to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No r order as to costs.