Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In V.K. Jagdhari (Supra), the Petitioner had retired on superannuation on 31.10.1995. Prior to that on 1.4.1984 the Government had introduced the Central Government Health Services which covered its employees and former employees who had opted to be covered by the scheme. Admittedly, CGHS facility was not available in Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, where the Petitioner Shri V.K. Jagdhari had settled after his retirement. For that reason he had not become a member of the CGHS. In these circumstances, even though the treatment had been undergone by the Petitioner Shri V.K. Jagdhari in the year 1998, he was granted reimbursement under the CGH Scheme on the basis of his subsequent subscription to the scheme on 26.4.1999. From the judgment, it appears that one of the reasons of granting relief in that case was that the court was of the opinion that his not having become a member of the CGH Scheme at the time when he underwent treatment, could not have been held against Shri V.K. Jagdhari, since, CGHS facility was not available at Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh. From the aforesaid, it appears that the decision in V.K. Jagdhari (supra) does not squarely apply in the facts of this case.

The question of entitlement of Government Employee to medical reimbursement for medical treatment undergone has been the subject matter of several rulings of this Court. In one of the judgments reported as S.K. Sharma v. Union of India , the Court after considering the rulings of the Supreme Court and other judgments of this Court held that a pensioner cannot be discriminated against merely because he has not opted for a CGHS Scheme and resides outside a non-CGHS area. The petitioner in that case, a non-card holder pensioner, residing in a non-CGHS area, after undergoing emergency medical treatment, had claimed in August 1998 and stated that ex-post facto approval ought to have been granted. The petitioner had also sought for issuance of the card subsequent to undergoing the treatment. The Court rejected a similar plea of the Central Government that the benefit was inadmissible (due to the patient living in a non-CGHS area, and not having the card) and directed the reimbursement to be given. In a Page 1834 judgment reported similarly in Mohinder Pal Sigh v. Union of India Court held that even if membership under the scheme has not been processed and granted but the patient had undergone medical treatment, he would nevertheless entitled to the benefits under the scheme.

Even otherwise in the case in hand, Justice Chawla enjoyed a special position being a Judge of superior court. Therefore even in the absence of CGHS Membership, he would have been entitled to reimbursement of his medical expenses even after retirement. The fact of the matter is that he became life member of CGHS on 8th March, 2002 by paying a lump sum fee, which was accepted by CGHS knowing fully well that Justice Chawla is already admitted in the hospital since 13th December, 2001. Therefore, once the Life Membership Fee was accepted it had to relate back from the date when he was hospitalised i.e. 13th December, 2001. The benefit of the same could not be restricted from 8th March, 2002. The purport and purpose of CGHS Scheme is to grant medical benefit and not to deprive the medical benefit on technical grounds particularly when Justice Chawla enjoyed a special position being a retired Judge of a High Court.

24. In B.R. Mehta v. Union of India , the Court proceeded on the basis that government had already granted sanction to the Petitioner for treatment and therefore the stand of the government that he was not a member of the CGHS was rejected.

25. The decision in S.K. Sharma v. Union of India and Anr. , was rendered in a situation where the Petitioner who earlier was a member of the CGHS decided not to continue as a member of the scheme when he shifted to Bareily, since benefit of the CGHS was not extended to Bareily. The court was therefore guided by the consideration that the retired officer should not suffer on account of the failure on the part of the Government to extend CGHS to all areas of the Country. This decision proceeds on the foundation that the retired government servant has a fundamental right to unconditional medical aid, irrespective of the fact whether the retired servant is a member of a health scheme or not, and whether or not he has paid the subscription therefore. This is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association (supra). Both S.K. Sharma (supra) and B.R. Mehta (supra) proceed on the basis that if the retired government servant lives in an area which is not served by the CGHS he need not become a member of the scheme and still would be entitled to the benefits thereof i.e. for reimbursement under the scheme. We do not agree with the reasoning of the Court in these decisions. In case the retired government employee is situated in a location not serviced by CGHS, or the concerned scheme the retired government servant can legitimately claim reimbursement for any emergency treatment even from a non-recognised hospital at the maximum of the rates prescribed under the scheme. In our view, nothing stops the retired government employee from contributing to the scheme and obtaining treatment in a CGHS area even though he resides in a non CGHS area. Even while living in such non CGHS/other scheme covered area, he is entitled to be compensated for any treatment obtained in an emergency situation at the prescribed rates. This has been held in Narendra Pal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. .