Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chander – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3217 of 2018, CM APPL. 44533 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2023
Mr. Shlok Chandra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nimit Saksham Jain, Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Mr. S.K. Gulia, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The court emphasized the need for evidence to support allegations of bogus medical bills and the requirement for a departmental enquiry before seeking refund of medical reimbursement.
Headnote:
Medical Reimbursement - Employee Rights - Central Administrative Tribunal - [Writ Petition] - [Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Section 14] - The court discussed the employee's right to claim medical reimbursement, the validity of the medical bills, and the actions of the petitioners in seeking refund of the reimbursement. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the bills were bogus and the need for a departmental enquiry before seeking refund.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased employee, a former Assistant Store Keeper, claimed medical reimbursement from the petitioner organization. After his retirement, the petitioners alleged that he submitted bogus medical bills and sought refund of the amount already reimbursed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to prove the medical bills were bogus and directed them to refund the recovered amount to the deceased employee's legal representatives. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Validity of medical reimbursement claims, Allegations of submitting bogus medical bills, Refund of reimbursed amount, Lack of departmental enquiry
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of evidence to prove the bills were bogus and the absence of a departmental enquiry before seeking refund influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioners to refund the recovered amount to the deceased employee's legal representatives and dismissed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao (Oral)--The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated August 03, 2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal' for short) in O.A. No. 2131/2017, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent, who, we have been informed, had since expired.
2. The Legal Representatives (`LRs' for short) of the respondent have been brought on record. The amended memo of parties has also been taken on record, in terms of order dated February 01, 2022.
3. The case of the deceased employee before the Tribunal was that he joined the petitioner no. 1 organization i.e. Delhi Transport Corporation in the year 1984 as an Assistant Store Keeper. He retired from the post on attaining the age of superannuation on June 30, 2017. While the deceased employee was employed in the petitioner no. 1, he was suffering from certain chronic diseases. He was also availing treatment for his ailments from Sanjeevan Medical Research Center (P) Ltd., which is an empanelled hospital of the petitioner No. 1, as an OPD patient and buying medicines, as prescribed by the concerned doctor of the said hospital from open market and had been claiming reimbursement of the medical expenses from the petitioners. The deceased employee had placed on record of the Tribunal, the medical bills submitted by him to the petitioner no. 1, which had also been passed by the petitioners and paid to the deceased employee.
4. It was his case that the petitioners after his retirement, had issued an order dated January 11, 2017, directing him to deposit Rs.3,36,572/- for falsely making medical claims by submitting bogus medical bills. Thereafter, the petitioners started recovering Rs.20,000/- per month from his salary. It was also his case that his retiral dues had not been settled by the petitioners at the time of filing of the O.A.
5. Before the Tribunal, the deceased employee had sought quashing of the order dated January 11, 2017 as well as a direction to the petitioners to release all the recovered amount from his salary.
6. The petitioners' case before the Tribunal was that the reimbursement claim by the deceased employee was on the basis of bogus medical bills.
7. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions, has in paragraphs 10 & 11, stated as under:
"10. Admittedly, the applicant has been suffering with the chronic ailment mentioned hereinabove and probably due to this chronic ailment, he was discharged from IAF on medical grounds in the year 1980. The records would indicate that the applicant has been taking treatment all through his service in DTC as an OPD patient and has been claiming medical reimbursements from the DTC regularly. The impugned Annexure A-I order of the respondents alleges that he has been claiming the medical reimbursements based on bogus medical bills. But the respondents have failed to prove that the medical bills presented by the applicant were indeed bogus. On the contrary, Annexure R-8 letter dated 20.03.2017 of Sanjeevan Medical Research Center (P) Ltd. confirms that the applicant was under treatment of Dr. Bansal as an OPD patient, was required to buy medicines from outside.
Under these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the allegations made in the impugned Annexure A-I order and seeking reimbursement of Rs.3,36,572/- from the applicant.
11. In the conspectus of discussions in the pre-paragraphs, the O.A. is allowed. Impugned Annexure A-I order dated 11.01.2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the applicant from his salary to him within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are further directed not to effect any deductions towards medical reimbursements from the retiral dues of the applicant. No order as to costs."
8. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has drawn our attention to pages 117 & 123 of the petition to co
