Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
O P Mehta vs Income Tax Department on 4 March, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 1418/2021
Chandigarh, this the 4th day of March, 2024
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
O.P. Mehta son of Nand Lal Mehta, aged 67 years, resident of
H. no. 697, Street No. 12, Agarsain Colony, Sirsa, district
Sirsa. Pin- 125050.
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. P.M. Kansal Proxy for Sh. Pankaj Mehta)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, New Delhi, Pin -125001 (E-mail:
[email protected])
2. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhiwani, Income tax
office, SCO -222, Huda Complex, Bhiwani- 127021
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Piyush Khanna)
O R D E R(Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed instant O.A under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief:
2
"(i) That respondents be directed to reimburse the Medical Claim along with interest. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly also be granted in favour of the applicant and application may kindly be allowed with cost."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Income Tax Officer in the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Sirsa. The applicant after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the office of respondent No. 2 on 30.06.2014. On 11.03.2021 the applicant felt unbearable Chest pain and was brought in the Poonia Hospital, Sirsa. The applicant was immediately admitted in the intensive care unit. Dr. Ajay Poonia, diagnosed and found it 'CAD ACUTE AWMI (STK+VE.). The applicant was in serious condition and Dr. Ajay Poonia discussed the disease with other Senior Doctors. Considering the seriousness of the disease CAG & PCI TO LED& D1 (2DES) was done on 12/03/2021, after which the applicant showed good recovery. After making sincere efforts of the doctor the applicant remained in stable condition and was discharged on 13.03.2021.
3. Dr. Ajay Poonia issued emergency certificate (Annexure A-2) to the applican, wherein, it was stated/mentioned that the patient was brought to the hospital in emergency state on 11.03.2021 and was suffering from Acute AWMI.
3
4. The applicant submitted medical bills of Rs. 1,89,250/- (Annexure A-3) to the office of respondent no. 3 for reimbursement on 08.06.2021 and applicant also made representation to the respondents with a prayer that his case may kindly be treated as 'Emergeny Case" and medical bills may kindly be passed in relaxation of CSMA, Rules. The applicant was informed vide letter ITO/DDO/HOO/EB/2021-22/860 dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure A-4) issued by respondent no. 2, to submit the reply on the matter regarding reimbursement of medical bills. The clarification was sought under which rule the claim for reimbursement is maintainable.
5. The applicant submitted reply in response to the afore said letter dated 15.09.2021 and replied that an employee has to submit the medial bills in the office concern from where he has retired and same procedure has been adopted in this matter and also requested to clear the medical bills. The applicant visited the office of respondent No. 2 and requested that he is in need of money as huge money was spent on his treatment. The respondent No. 2 vide office letter dated 15.11.2021 rejected the claim of the applicant regarding reimbursement of medical bills on the ground that only serving Govt. Employees are covered under the CSMA rules, 1944. Hence, any claim of Medical reimbursement in respect of retired Govt. Servant under CSMA Rules is not admissible. It was further mentioned that an employee has to get registered himself with 4 CGHS centre and the applicant is not a beneficiary under the CGHS also.
6. Heard learned proxy counsel for the applicant as well as respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant made representations dated 10.06.2021 and 04.10.2021 which are still pending. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant will be satisfied if the respondents are directed to re-consider and decide the representations of the applicant dated 10.06.2021 and 04.10.2021 in term of the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 1286/2021 titled as Anandi Devi Vs. Union of India by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time bound manner.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.
9. In the view of aforesaid, the respondents are directed to re- consider and decide the representations of the applicant dated 10.06.2021 and 04.10.2021 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. The O.A is disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) Member (J) ms*