AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.08.2019 which was pronounced
on 17.09.2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent. In-fact, Central
Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') were not applicable to retired government officials.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 187, wherein, it was 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.
Applicant had filed the application seeking medical reimbursement. It was the case of the applicant that her husband had been working as Deputy
Post Master at Kota and had retired from service on 30.06.2005. On 04.09.2018 and 16.09.2018, husband of the applicant got himself examined from
Government Hospital, Chhabra where he was advised to get treatment at a higher medical center. Thereafter, husband of the applicant remained
under treatment at Bharat Vikas Parisad Hospital, Kota from 16.09.2018 to 17.09.2018. He was shifted to Sudha Hospital, Kota where he remained
admitted upto 28.09.2018. Unfortunately, he died on 28.09.2018. However, the medical bills submitted by the applicant were not reimbursed by the
department.
Learned Tribunal, while considering the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rules  were not applicable to retired
government officials, has observed as under:-
Admittedly, the applicant's husband remained admitted in Bharat Vikas Parisad Hospital, Kota from 16.09.2018 to 17.09.2018 and thereafter from
17.09.2018 to 28.09.2018 in Sudha Hospital, Kota. Unfortunately, he could not survive and expired on 28.09.2018. His treatment from the said
hospitals has not been disputed by the respondents. The controversy with regard to applicability of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rule, 1944
upon retirees of Postal Department has already been set at rest by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal. The view taken by the Ahmedabad Bench
of this Tribunal has already been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has further been followed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of
Ram Swarup Gupta (O.A. No.786/2012 decided on 27.08.2013) and Ramji Lal Sharma Vs. UOI and Ors. (O.A. No.657/2016 decided on
22.11.2017). The case of the applicant's husband cannot be treated differently by the respondents and, therefore the applicant is entitled to get
reimbursement of medical bills in accordance with the provisions of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to controvert the observations made by the Tribunal reproduced hereinabove.
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 learned Tribunal had, thus, rightly allowed the case of the respondent seeking
reimbursement of medical bills towards expenditure incurred on her husband's treatment. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.