Union Of India And Ors vs Gend Behari Chaturvedi

Petitioners have filed the petition challenging the order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, Original Application filed by the respondent-applicant was allowed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the original application filed by the respondent. In-fact, Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were not applicable to retired government officials.

Respondent-applicant had filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking medical reimbursement vis-à-vis treatment undergone by him.

The respondent-applicant was a substantive employee of the postal department and retired from service on 28.02.2010 while working on the post of Postal Assistant at Head Post Office, Bundi. Respondent-applicant suffered from a cardiac disease and had been getting his medical check-up at Bundi from time to time. In the month of November, 2018, his condition became serious and he was advised further treatment from a higher medical centre. Family members of the respondent-applicant got him admitted in Kota Heart Institute and Research Center, Kota in emergency where he took treatment from 15.11.2018 to 21.11.2018 as an indoor patient. Total amount of Rs. 2,29,862/- was incurred on his treatment. The respondent-applicant submitted his medical bills for reimbursement before Petitioner No. 4, which were declined vide letter dated 23.01.2019. Thereafter, respondent-applicant made a further request before Petitioner No. 3, which was also rejected vide letter dated 24.04.2019. Hence, the respondent-applicant filed the Original Application seeking reimbursement of medical bills vis-à-vis his treatment from 15.11.2018 to 21.11.2018.

Learned Tribunal, while considering the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Rules were not applicable to retired government officials, has observed as under:-

"7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the applicant had suffered from a cardiac disease and he remained admitted as an indoor patient from 15.11.2018 to 21.11.2018 in Kota Heart Institute and Research Centre, Kota. His medical bills have been returned by respondents vide their letters dated 24.04.2019 and 23.01.2019 (Annexures A/1 and A/2) stating therein that the provisions of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 are not applicable on the retired government officials. While declining the applicant's claim on the said ground, the respondents have totally ignored the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the matter of Gaffur Mohammad (supra) wherein it has been held that the provisions of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 are applicable on the retired employees of the Postal Department. It requires to be noticed herein that the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in Gaffur Mohammad (supra) has already been implemented by the respondents and the medical bills of the applicant therein stands reimbursed. I do not see any reason with the respondents to take a different view in the case of the applicant herein."

Learned Tribunal also placed reliance on decision in Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India 2018 (2) S.C.T. 529, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court."

Thus, so far as the controversy with regard to applicability of the Rules on retired government officials is concerned, the same has already been set at rest by the Apex Court.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal had, thus, rightly allowed the case of the respondent-applicant seeking reimbursement of medical bills towards expenditure incurred on his treatment.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.