Dharminder Sharma vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 7 May, 2018
23. Ex-facie, the main arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondents that since the retired employees / pensioners, are
governed by the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, and there is a bar under
Note 2 (iv) of Rule (2) thereof, so the applicants are not entitled to
re-imbursement of their medical claims, are neither tenable nor
observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of Paluru
Ramkrishnaiah & Others etc. Vs. Union of India etc. AIR 1990
SC 166, dealing with the executive instruction and recruitment
rules; State of Sikkim Vs. Dorgee Tshering Bhutia, AIR 1991
SC 1933, dealing with the recruitment and exercise of executive
powers; National Mineral Development Corporation Limited Vs.
State of Karnataka & Others, AIR 1997 Karnataka 331, dealing
with Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957,
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh &
Others, AIR 2007, SC Page 1082 dealing with statutory rules and
service conditions, Union of India & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal, 2013 (14) SCALE 323, dealing with suspension of
employee; Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India etc.