Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Pitam Singh S/O Late Shri Kalu Ram vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 3 July, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2459/2012
Reserved on : 05.03.2013
Pronounced on :
Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Shri Pitam Singh S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram
Resident of E-5/26, Dayalpur,
Delhi-110094. Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sharvan Dev)
Versus
1. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Transport Department ISBT
Kashmere Gate, Delhi,
Through its General Manager.
3. Delhi Transport5 Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited.
(An Enterprise of Govt. of Delhi)DANIPS (Adhoc)
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Office of D.T.I.D.C.
I.S.B.T., Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006
Through its Dy. General Manager. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
O R D E R
The applicant of this OA was a work-charged regular employee of the respondents posted at ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as a Pump Operator-II.
2. He fell ill and his illness was detected as cancer by the St. Stephens Hospital, after which he was referred to the Dharamshila Hospital, and a long treatment was given to him at the Dharamshila Cancer Hospital and Research Centre. With Gods grace, he recovered from the said illness. He then submitted his medical bills totalling to Rs.4,98,164/- to the respondent-authority. The respondent authority, in turn, cleared 80% of those medical bills, by passing the bills in respect of Rs.3,99,744/-, through their orders dated 13.11.2007, 06.12.2007, 28.12.2007, 11.01.2008, 22.01.2008, 11.02.2008 and 07.05.2008. However, being dissatisfied with the balance amount of Rs.98,420/- having remained unpaid or un-reimbursed, the applicant earlier came before this Tribunal in OA 67/2011, which was disposed of on 10.01.2011 with the following orders:
2. In view of the above, we dispose of this OA, at the admission stage itself, by directing the respondents to review the medical claims of the applicant with reference to the rules for re-imbursement of medical charges incurred by work-charge regular staff, treating this OA also as a supplementary representation, and pass a detailed and speaking order indicating the rules under which the specific reasons for the amounts disallowed in each bill.
3. The OA is disposed of in terms of the above directions. No costs.
3. Since the Tribunal had directed the respondents to review the medical claims of the applicant with reference to the rules for re-imbursement of medical charges incurred by him as a work charged regular staff, the applicant expected the respondents to forthwith comply with such order. However, when that did not happen, he filed C.P. No.741/2011 in which order came to be passed on 24.10.2011 alleging disobedience of the order dated 10.01.2011 passed in OA 67/2011 (supra). In the CP, the respondents had filed their reply along with an order dated 10.10.2011, in compliance of the Tribunals directions, which was taken on record. The Bench on that day felt satisfied with the order passed by the respondent authority on 10.10.2011, and held that no case of contempt is made out. Accordingly, the CP was closed and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged, giving liberty to the applicant that if he is still aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2011, to challenge the same on the original side, which the applicant has done now. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Deputy General Manager of Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short DTIDC), 2nd Floor, Maharana Pratap ISBT Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The respondents have unlawfully denied the amount of medical reimbursement due to him. He has, therefore, made the following prayers:
(a) To set aside and quash the order dated 5.10.2010 and 10.10.2011 passed by the respondents.
(b) To direct the respondents to reimburse the balance amount Rs.98,420/- + interest Rs.59050/- total Rs.1,57,470.00 to the applicant and grant all consequential benefits.
(c) To pass any other orders as may be deemed just fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The contention of the applicant in the present OA is that the respondents have stated in the impugned reply that the petitioner is a work charged regular staff working at the ISBT, Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi, who was transferred from DDA along with ISBT on 05.05.1993 to the GNCT of Delhi. However, the status of the said employee has not yet been decided by the respondents till date, and, therefore, the applicant cannot be denied his legitimate demand of medical expenses, at par with the facilities which are being provided to the work charged staff of the DDA, where he had initially been employed. In support of his contention, the applicant has relied upon the judgments in the cases of State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla etc. JT 1997 (1) SC 416, Narendra Pal Singh vs. Union of India 79 (1999) Delhi Law Times 358, and Kishan Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 169 (2010) D.O.T. 32.
5. He has also taken the ground that the claim now being made by him did not arise on account of any actions of his own. The St. Stephens Hospital had actually referred him to the Dharamshila Cancer Hospital for treatment of the special decease of cancer, which was not available at the St. Stephens Hospital, and the respondents are, therefore, duty bound to reimburse his full claim, since he has claimed only the actual amount spent, and not to and fro transport charges, attendants charges etc. He has further taken the ground that the respondents have nowhere denied that the treatment for the decease of cancer was not available at the St. Stephens Hospital, and that he was properly referred by that Hospital to a specialized Hospital, and, therefore, his medical claim is as per the proper procedure for reimbursement of medical claims.
6. Explaining the delay in filing of this OA, he has explained the facts regarding his legal notice to the respondents issued through his counsels letter dated 20.09.2010, which was replied to by the respondents through Annexure A-6 letter dated 05.10.2010, which had formed the basis for him to file OA No.67/2011 (supra), and that this Tribunal had closed C.P.No.741/2011 vide its order dated 24.10.2011 giving liberty to the applicant to challenge the order dated 10.01.2010 on the original side. The applicant has also justified having filed the amended Memo of Parties on 06.01.2013.
7. In their counter reply filed on 04.12.2012, the respondents stoutly contested the claim of the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant, along with other erstwhile staff of DDA, got transferred along with ISBT, Kashmere Gate to the Transport Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Later on, the Delhi Government has constituted a Corporation, namely DTIDC, for handling the working of these assets taken over from the DDA. Therefore, the respondents had filed MA No. 158/2013 praying for DTIDC to be impleaded as a party respondent through his Executive Director. Since the impugned order had been passed by the DTIDC, and not by the respondents named by the applicant in this OA, the MA 158/2013 was allowed on 22.01.2013, with DTIDC being allowed to be named as a party respondent, and the amended Memo of Parties was taken on record. The applicant had earlier filed a reply to this MA on 16.01.2013, submitting that the he had no objection in impleading DTIDC as party respondent no.3 in the Memo of Parties, but had pleaded therein that if the Miscellaneous Applicants now take shelter behind the pleadings that the impugned order dated 10.01.2010 was passed by the DTIDC, and not by the respondents named earlier by the applicant, then it is open to the Tribunal to issue contempt notice and re-open his closed contempt petition case once again, because this very order dated 10.01.2010 was filed by the respondents in response to the Contempt Petition No.741/2011 (supra) also.
8. The respondents had raised a preliminary objection in their reply to the O.A., stating that the applicant has challenged the order passed by the DTIDC, a Govt. Company under the GNCT of Delhi, and the cause of action had arisen on 10.10.2011, when the impugned order was issued. It was further submitted that neither the applicant holds a civil post, nor is the named company, which had issued the impugned order, yet been notified to come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, it was pleaded that the OA is liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, they had given the details of the process, which had been undertaken by the respondent authority in admitting the major portion of the claim of medical reimbursement of the applicant. It was further submitted that the respondent authority is bound to reimburse the medical claim only according to the existing rules and regulations for the civil servants, but not the full payment as may have been charged by the hospital, and it was denied that the applicant was admitted in the said hospital in any emergency. It was submitted that the payments, as admissible and due, have already been paid to the applicant, treating him as a civil servant, and the reimbursement claims have been paid according to the rules and regulations issued by the Govt. of India/ Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It was further submitted that these claims, as admitted, are also in accordance with the norms of the DDA (Medical Attendance) Rules, and, therefore, the contentions raised by the applicant were denied. It was further submitted that the contentions raised by the applicant are absolutely misconceived, and the actions of the respondents have not been illegal, arbitrary, unjust and malafide or un-Constitutional.
9. Both the counter replies filed on behalf of earlier named respondents, and the order dated 10.10.2011 in reply to the contempt petition, were signed and verified by the same person, Shri P.K.Goel, Dy.GM, and the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the plea of jurisdiction amounts to an attempt to misguide this Tribunal. It was further submitted that if the respondents are now taking shelter behind Annexure MA/X-1 of order dated 23.12.2010, by which in the DTIDC, 138 posts were created, in lieu for taking over all the 138 staff earlier working in ISBT, and it was said that all the benefits of service, including the pay, gratuity, leave etc. as accrued to the employees of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi shall be applicable to the above employees also, this fact was not disclosed by the respondents even in OA 67/2011. Later on, during the hearing of the contempt petition, the respondents had produced the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 in compliance of the Tribunals direction, because of which the CP was closed and liberty was granted to the applicant to file fresh OA for any remaining grievance on the original side. It was, therefore, contended that there is nothing wrong in filing the present OA. It was further submitted that the applicant of the OA had himself conceded the Miscellaneous Applicant-DTIDC being impleaded as party respondent no.3, and filing of amended Memo of Parties accordingly impleading the DTIDC as party respondent was allowed on 22.01.2013, subject to the other contentions in the MA not being decided on that day itself. In support of his contention, the applicant had, along with the reply to the MA, filed a copy of the CP earlier filed by him, and the reply in the contempt petition filed by the respondents, along with the affidavit of the same person Shri P.K.Goel, as Dy.GM, DTIDC, ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
10. The applicant also filed a rejoinder on 16.01.2013, reiterating his pleas, contentions, grounds and the prayers, as per the original OA, and had submitted that from the conduct of the DTIDC, in having filed the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 even in the contempt petition, the DTIDC cannot now be allowed to escape by pleading that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, since it has not been notified as such.
11. It was further submitted that the delay, if any, cannot deny the applicants entitlement to claim for reimbursement of his medical bills, since in the cases of Gurcharan Singh vs.Union of India and K.K.Kharbanda vs. Union of India, Delhi High Court has allowed even 20 years old claims. It was also submitted that the rates of medical claim would have been revised many times and the applicant should therefore be reimbursed full amount, as prayed for in the OA. The applicant had further reiterated his contention that when the St. Stephens Hospital was not having facilities for treatment of cancer, and had referred the applicant for treatment to the Dharamshila Cancer Hospital, whatever bills were raised by the Dharamshila Hospital, are liable to be reimbursed. He had further tried to make out his case for reimbursement of the accommodation/room rent charges, claiming it to be an integral part of the treatment. He had submitted that since the respondents have not challenged the genuineness of the bills, they are bound to pay full reimbursement of his medical bills, along with the interest thereon, which he claimed to be Rs.1,57,470/- as the amount now payable to him. In the result, he had prayed that the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 have not been followed by the respondents while passing the medical bills, and had also prayed that in the interest of justice, the OA be allowed in terms of the prayers made therein, and orders be passed in his favour and against the respondents.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant also filed a compilation of judgments in the cases of State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla etc. JT 1997 (1) SC 416, Narendra Pal Singh vs. Union of India 79 (1999) Delhi Law Times 358, and Kishan Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 169 (2010) D.O.T. 32, V.K.Gupta vs. Union of India, 97 (2002) D.L.T. 337, Gurcharan Singh vs. Union of India 166 (2010) D.L.T. 610, and K.K.Kharbanda vs. Union of India, WP(c) NO.6049/2005.
13. Heard the case in detail. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents also filed a copy of the office order E.O.No.214 dated 12.02.2013, by which the DTIDC had sanctioned a sum of Rs.41,735/- on account of further reimbursement of the balance amount of the medical claim in respect of applicants treatment, by reconsidering those medical claims once again, by way of an offer for out of Court settlement being made in his favour. The learned counsel for the applicant denied that the applicant had ever accepted such an out of Court settlement, and said that he was insisting on full claim being allowed.
14. The first issue to be decided is with regard to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, since it is the duty of the Court to first decide the issue of its jurisdiction, if need be, for dispensing justice.
15. Moreover, in this case, it is seen that this aspect of jurisdiction has been dealt last time also that the DTIDC having subjected itself voluntarily to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, even though the learned counsel for the respondents is right in stating that the DTIDC has not been so far notified in the list of organizations coming under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is also seen from the reply in CP 741/2011 dated 20.10.2011, as filed by the applicant along with the reply to the MA 158/2011, that the said affidavit in the Contempt Petition had also been signed and verified by the same officer, i.e. Shri P.K.Goel, Dy. GM, DTIDC. It was accompanied by an affidavit, which was also signed and verified by the same officer, as annexed at pages 93-94 of the Paper Book. It was that affidavit, along with the same impugned order dated 10.10.2011, which was relied upon by the respondents for getting disposal of the Contempt Petition, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged on the basis of that very affidavit, and the impugned order passed by the DTIDC.
16. Therefore, when once the Dy. GM, DTIDC, had voluntarily subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at the time of passing of the order in the CP 647/2012 on 24.01.2011, the contention of jurisdiction now being raised at the preliminary stage, that this OA cannot be decided by this Tribunal now because the DTIDC has not been notified as one of the Corporations falling under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, is rejected. DTIDC having voluntarily subjected itself to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, in order to bailout the two named respondents in the CP, namely Shri M.M. Kutti, Commissioner/Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 5/9, Under Hill Road, New Delhi, and Shri S.M. Ali, General Manager Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, the Respondent No.3 DTIDC cannot now be allowed to hide behind the technicality of the DTIDC in having not been notified as one of the organizations falling under the jurisdiction and purview of this Tribunal, specially so when the MA No.158/2013 had been filed on 05.12.2012 with the specific prayer that DTIDC Ltd. be impleaded as respondent No.3 in the instant O.A., in the interest of justice., and that M.A. was allowed.
17. It is quite clear that no other issue to determine the jurisdiction of this Tribunal still remains open, and that this O.A. can now be decided by this Single Bench. Secondly, I have gone through the case law, as submitted by the applicant and cited in para 12 above. The fact that medical reimbursement is one of the claims which cannot be denied to the applicant merely on technical ground, is well established in law, and by the cited case law also. However, it has to be allowed as per the applicable rules.
18. In the instant case, after having passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2011, during the pendency of this OA, the respondent no.3 i.e. DTIDC has further examined the case of the applicants medical claim in detail, and passed the order sanctioning further amount of Rs.41,700/- through order dated 12.03.2013, as mentioned above also. Therefore, the applicant cannot be allowed to plead that he must be reimbursed every single rupee, which was charged from him by the Dharamshila Hospital. In the instant case, it is not imperative for the respondents to pass medical bills for room rent etc. in full, and they are bound to pass such bills only in accordance with the entitlement of the person concerned for room rent etc., excluding the boarding charges, as per the given rules.
19. In this particular case, even though the respondent no.3 initially stoutly denied any further claim being due to the applicant after the impugned order dated 10.10.2011, they have now gone through the medical reimbursement claim case of the applicant more carefully, and have determined that he was entitled to the further amount of a sum of Rs.41,700/-, which was sanctioned through order dated 12.03.2013. It does not seem that any issue now survives for a judicial determination.
20. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant cannot claim reimbursement in respect of every single rupee, which was charged from him by the Dharamshila Cancer Hospital, and the applicant perhaps ought to be satisfied with further amount of Rs.41,700/- sanctioned to him through order dated 12.03.2013. Therefore, in terms of the above observations, the OA is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sudhir Kumar) Member (A) /kdr/