AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is the second round of litigation. The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Pass an order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondents for making the payment on interest @ 24% p/a for the total paid amount by the respondent to the applicant from the date of first submission to the respondents/department.
(b) Pass an order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondents for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only) as a compensation for physical harassment and mental agony caused to the applicant by the respondents.
(c) To allow the OA with cost on the respondents.
(d) Pass an order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondents as their Lordship of the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
And for this act of kindness, the applicant shall ever bind to pray the Hon'ble court/tribunal."
The facts of the case, as stated in the O.A., are that the applicant was working as skilled worker in the Ministry of Textile. His wife was taken ill in 2011 and submitted the medical bills. He undertook withdrawal of funds from GPF account. His wife was admitted in the hospital on 05.04.2011 and was discharged from there on 11.04.2011. Subsequently, the applicant submitted an application along with original bills of medical expenses of his wife's treatment to respondent No.2 on 29.04.2011 for reimbursement of Rs. 4,10,294/-. Little later, the applicant under took eye surgery on 07.02.2013 and spent Rs. 32,985/- for this treatment. On 23.09.2013, the applicant submitted an application for reimbursement of Rs. 24473/- for his eye treatment. However, the respondents did not reimburse the said amount. Aggrieved by this, the applicant filed two OAs No. 3425/2014 and 3426/2014 for reimbursement of his wife's medical bills.. It is stated that during the pendency of this O.A., the respondents deposited an amount of Rs. 3,76,108/- on 29.07.2015 against the bills for treatment of his wife and Rs. 23,170/- on 23.03.2016 towards the reimbursement for the treatment of the applicant. It is stated that although these amounts had been paid but the respondents did not pay any interest for the said amount, which was legally payable to him in view of the delay that took place in the reimbursement. The applicant retired from service on 28.02.2014.
The applicant filed two OAs seeking relief earlier. This Tribunal took up both OAs No. 3425/2014 and 3426/2014 together and passed the following order on 30.07.2015:-
"6. Having considered the submissions and in view of the stand taken and also keeping in view that against the claim of Rs. 4,46,014/- a sum of Rs. 3,76,108/- has already been paid and for the remaining amount the matter is under consideration, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, no purpose would be served by keeping these Applications pending, and it would be appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage with the direction to the respondents to examine the matter and take necessary decision expeditiously in respect of payment of the remaining dues along with the claim of interest, positively within a period of two months from today for payment of the applicant's remaining dues, as claimed. In the event decision is not taken within the aforesaid period or the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision so taken, it would be open to him to seek such remedy as may be available to him under the law.
With the above order, both the Applications stand finally disposed of, but without costs."
As no action was taken on the orders of the Tribunal by the respondents, the applicant filed CP-178/2016 in OA-3425/2014. The same was heard by this Tribunal and disposed of on 14.09.2016 with the following order:-
"2. From the above directions, it is clear that claim of the applicant was required to be considered for non-payment of the balance due amount and claim of interest. The respondents have produced a copy of compliance affidavit today. From its perusal, it appears that as against the final bill of the applicant for an amount of `4,10,794/-, the admissible amount of `3,76,108/- has been released. The last payment being of `23,170 /- on 23.03.2016 and the other amounts are found inadmissible. The only direction issued to the respondents was to consider the claim of the applicant. The respondents having considered and paid the admissible amounts, no contempt is made out. Proceedings dropped."
With both the OAs having been disposed of by the Tribunal followed by Contempt Petition, decided by this Tribunal, the applicant was obviously satisfied with the reimbursement amounts paid to him by the respondents. However, in the present OA, applicant has sought direction to the respondents for paying interest at 24% p.a. for the total paid amount to the applicant by the respondents.
The respondents in their counter affidavit have clarified the position regarding payment of dues. They have confirmed that against the applicant's total claimed amount of Rs. 4,35, 367/-including Rs. 4, 10, 794/- for his wife's treatment and Rs. 24573/- for his own treatment submitted on 29.04.2011 and 23.09.2013, an amount of Rs. 3,76,198/- has been released against reimbursement amount claimed for his wife's treatment and Rs. 23,170/- against the reimbursement amount claimed for applicant's own treatment. Respondents have further stated that this has been done in terms of CGHS Rules and no further amount is admissible to be paid to the applicant. They have also submitted that the applicant's claim of interest @24% p.a. is not based on any prescribed rules on the subject.
Learned counsel of the applicant submitted a copy of the order dated 04.08.2011 of this Tribunal passed in OA-4131/2010 regarding payment of interest. The relevant para of the order is as under:-
"6....The question that now arises for our consideration is whether a retiree can approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to claim interest only on the delayed payment of pension and other retiral benefits. As observed earlier, there is a duty cast on the State to disburse pension and retiral benefits immediately when they become due and it is the non-performance of this statutory duty which gives rise to the retiree to claim compensation by way of interest. This right to claim interest partakes the nature and character of the retiral benefits and is indeed a concomitant of the right to claim pension and retiral benefits and cannot be separated therefrom...."
6.1 The applicant's counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab-Haryana High Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ranbir Singh, [R.S.A. No. 3524/2012 (O&M)] dated 08.08.2012. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has also mentioned the Apex Court judgment in the case of Om Prakash Gargi Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1996) 11 SCC 399. The relevant para of the judgment is as under:-
"Thus, medical reimbursement is neither a bounty nor a concession to be awarded to be government employee for his medical treatment, but it is a constitutional obligation of the government to bear the expenses. If the employee is at fault in submitting the bills or the bills could not be processed for some reasons attributable to the government employee, then he could be denied the relief of interest but when the government employee has submitted the bills and the employees dealing *** with such bills, for the reasons best known to them, delay the payment and ultimately, the payment is made then why the government employee should not be compensated for the delay caused in payment. Lest payment of bills bring dual sufferings to the government employee."
The learned counsel of the respondents on the other hand have relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Om Prakash Gargi Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1996)11 SCC 399.
Heard the learned counsel of the applicant and the respondents.
This is the second round of litigation. The applicant in two earlier OAs sought relief from this Tribunal for the pending reimbursement of medical bills of his wife's treatment and his own treatment. Both the OAs were disposed of with the directions to the respondents that they will examine the matter and take necessary decision expeditiously in respect of the pending remaining dues along with claim of interest within a period of two months. The applicant filed Contempt Petition before the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 14.09.2016 as the admissible amount towards reimbursement had already been released by the respondents.
The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking relief in terms of payment of interest @24% p.a. on the amount paid to him after a certain delay.
The respondents have indicated that the delay is on account of various procedures involving CGHS rules, various conditions of empanelled hospitals and most importantly as the bills for reimbursement had been submitted quite late by the applicant himself. It is evident that the applicant has been paid the entire admissible amount against his claim and therefore is not making any further claims on any pending amount. As far as the question of payment of interest is concerned, the relied upon Tribunal's order dated 04.08.2011 is in relation to the claim of interest on pension and other retiral benefits and, therefore, does not help the claim in this O.A. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Ranbir Singh (supra) has dealt in detail about the bills in such payments and consequences. In this order, a reference has also been made about Apex Court's decision in the case of Om Prakash Gargi (supra). The Apex Court ruling in Om Prakash Gargi's case is clear and unambiguous. Relevant portion of this judgment is quoted below:-
"4. We do not find any force in the contention. It is true that but for the benefit of reimbursement of the amount granted by the government, the petitioner has no right to claim reimbursement. The question is whether on account of delay in reimbursing the amount incurred towards medical expenses, the State should be liable to pay also interest on the delayed payment? We are of the view that it is inexpedient and not proper to direct the State to pay interest for delay in payment of the reimbursement amount. It requires verification of the amounts spent by the petitioner and similar person. His right only is to get reimbursement and it does not follow that for the delay in the payment of medical reimbursement, he should also be entitled to interest thereon. The order passed by this court on an earlier occasion was to the effect of dismissing the special leave petition in limine. Therefore, it does not furnish any ratio decidendi for following the same. Under these circumstances, we do not think that it would be proper to direct payment of interest on the delayed reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by a government servant."
In view of the settled position of law and the decision of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the applicant has already been reimbursed the entire admissible amount by the respondents and no interest is admissible on medical reimbursement for the delay, which is on various grounds including late submission of bills by the applicant.
In view of the above mentioned, this O.A. is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.