Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4392
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Shekher Dhawan, J.
No. 67243026 Ex. Inspector Sital Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
CWP No. 13014 of 2011
Decided On : 20-11-2018
Ravi Badyal, Advocate, for the Petitioner in CWP No. 13041 of 2011 and CWP No. 15205 of 2012; J.C. Malik, Advocate, for the Petitioner in CWP No. 6655 of 2012; Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1 to 5 in CWP No. 6655 of 2012; Sheenu Sura, Advocate, for the Respondent in CWP No. 15205 of 2012
Pensioners are entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses incurred during treatment, as established by previous judgments and government orders.
Headnote:
Medical Reimbursement - Pensioners - Central Government Employees (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, Border Security Force Welfare Fund Rules, 1988 - 2006 AIR (SC) 2945, 1998 AIR (SC) 1703, 2008 (2) S.C.T. 242 - The court considered the applicability of medical reimbursement rules to pensioners and held in favor of the petitioners based on previous judgments and government orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired army personnel, sought reimbursement for medical expenses incurred during treatment in a private hospital. The claim was rejected citing inapplicability of reimbursement rules to pensioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for medical reimbursement was wrongly declined based on the rules applicable to serving government servants only.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of medical reimbursement rules to pensioners and the entitlement of retired personnel to claim reimbursement for medical expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and government orders to establish that pensioners are entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses incurred during treatment.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioners during their treatment in private hospitals.
JUDGMENT
Shekher Dhawan, J. - As common questions of facts and law are involved in all the above titled three writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, with the consent of the parties, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP-13014-2011, No. 67243026 Ex. Inspector Sital Singh vs. Union of India and others. Present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 2.11.2010 (Annexure P/10), whereby prayer for reimbursement for medical claims of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 25.07.1964 and superannuated on 30.10.1999. During the service tenure of the petitioner, he was provided medical facilities under the Central Government Employees (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (For short, "the Medical Rules") and some amount was deducted from the salary of the petitioner towards the BSF Welfare Funds for which "Border Security Force Welfare Fund Rules, 1988 (for short, "1988 Rules") were framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As per the petitioner, on 27.08.2010, he suffered from heart pain and was shifted to a private hospital called Tagore Hospital Heart Care Centre, respondent No.4 where he remained admitted upto 31.08.2010 as indoor patient. The disease of the petitioner was diagnosed as CAD, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Trop T positive. The petitioner submitted a claim of Rs. 2,54,724/- on account of his indoor treatment, but the same was declined by the respondents vide order dated 2.11.2010 (Annexure P/10).
4. In the written statement, the respondents took the plea that the petitioner was enrolled on 25.07.1964 in 36 PAP which was converted into 24 Bn. BSF and thereafter, he proceeded on voluntary retirement on 31.10.1999. The respondents admitted the fact that the medical bill of Rs. 2,54,724/- was received but after examining it, the same was returned with the remarks that as per notification No. F.16-2/38-H dated 1.1.1994, reimbursement under CCS (MA) Rules is applicable to serving government servants only and as such the medical bill amounting to Rs. 2,54,724/- cannot be considered and reimbursed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the matter in controversy had been set at rest by larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Confederation of Exservicemen Associations and others vs. Union of India and others, 2006 AIR (SC) 2945 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a view that the pensioners as well as employees in service cannot be considered to be equal and one Class, and the Courts cannot issue directions or guidelines to fill in the gaps. On the same point, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, 1998 AIR (SC) 1703 .
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that certain facts are not disputed about the ailment and submission of medical reimbursement bill to the tune of Rs. 2,54,724/- by the petitioner. The said prayer of the petitioner was declined vide impugned order, Annexure P/10 on the ground that reimbursement under CCS (MA) Rules is applicable to serving government servants only and as such the medical bill amounting to Rs. 2,54,724/- cannot be considered and reimbursed.
7. The matter in controversy was subject matter of 2008 (2) S.C.T. 242, Darshan Singh Rai vs. Union of India and others , decided on 13.03.2008, wherein Hon'ble Division Bench observed as under:-
"The State cannot refuse reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by a Government servant for it is the bona fide duty of the Government to pay for the beneficial act of an employee as it is Welfare State. All the rules and regulations are to be considered in favour of the Government employee liberally and to his benefit. The State cannot be permitted to have an iron h
