CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.060/255/2024 Chandigarh, the 13^th day of August, 2024 HON’BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

Nathu Ram, retd. Post Master, s/o Bishna Ram, r/o Village and PO Ramsara Bagha Road, Near Railway Line, Raman Mandi, Bathinda, Punjab – 151301 (Group-B)

...Applicant (Advocate: Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh –

160017.

3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Bathinda Division, Bathinda – 151005.

…Respondent(s)

(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)

O R D E R (Oral)

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby claim of the applicant for medical reimbursement for medical treatment undertaken by him has been declined by respondent no. 3. The applicant has sought for the following relief:

i. Impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 22.02.2024 be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to consider and disburse the full amount of medical reimbursement to the applicant.

ii. That cost of application may be awarded in favour of the applicant.

2. The averments of the applicant are that he retired from government service as Post Master w.e.f. 31.03.2013. Thereafter, the applicant opted for fixed medical allowance for his day-to-day medical treatment as since no CGHS dispensary was available at Bathinda. In October, 2023, the applicant suffered from heart problem and remained in indoor treatment at AIIMS Hospital Bathinda, and was operated upon on 12.10.2023, incurring Rs. 1,10,892/- for his treatment.

3. It is submitted by the applicant that he submitted medical bills to respondent no. 3 vide application dated 10.02.2024 (Annexure A-2), and request of the applicant has been rejected by respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure A-1), stating that CS(MA) Rules, 1944 do not cover the cases of retired government employees, and as such no reimbursement can be granted to the employees.

4. It is the contention of the applicant that action of the respondents in denying medical reimbursement to the applicant is in violation of various judgments wherein it has been held that fixed medical allowances paid to the pensioner every month is meant for his day to day medical expenses and will not cover the indoor treatment expenses, and such retired pensioners have been held entitled to medical reimbursement for medical treatment taken by them from recognized hospitals. The applicant placed reliance upon the order of this Tribunal in the case of Dharminder Sharma Vs. Union of India & ors. in O.A./060/737/2015 decided on 07.05.2018, wherein this Tribunal observed the right of retired pensioners for medical treatment and allowed them medical reimbursement as per applicable CGHS rates.

5. The applicant has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure A-3) in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohanlal Gupta, 2018(1) SCT 686, wherein the issue regarding medical reimbursement was raised, and the Hon’ble High Court dismissed number of writ petitions filed by Union of India and held the retired employees entitled for medical reimbursement. The applicant has further submitted that similar issue was raised before this Tribunal in the case of Surinder Mohan Vs. Union of India in O.A./060/714/2020, wherein, after taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Mohanlal Gupta (supra), this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure A-4), again upheld the entitlement of retired employees for medical reimbursement.

6. It has been contested by the respondents that the applicant is not entitled for medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,10,892/- in view of Para (iv) Note 2 of Rule 1 of Central Services (Medical At