CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.060/55/2024 Chandigarh, the 6^th day of September, 2024 HON’BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

Darshan Singh Sohal, s/o Sh. Hardyal Singh Sohal, ex- Income Tax Officer, r/o House No. 23289, Street No. 16, Bhai matti Dass Nagar, Mansa Road, Bathinda, Punjab.

...Applicant (Advocate: Sh. Harish Chandra)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CGST, North Block, New Delhi – 110001.

2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, AUI, Bathinda, Civil Station, Bathinda – 151001 (Punjab).

…Respondent(s)

(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh. Pankaj Khurana)

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 30.10.2023 (Annexure A-1), whereby claim of the applicant for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 1,76,295/- on treatment of his wife has been rejected on the ground that retired employees are not covered under CS (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. The applicant has sought quashing of impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 30.10.2023 and further sought for direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the applicant to the extent of Rs. 1,76,295/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount became due to the actual date of payment.

2. The averments of the applicant are that he retired from Income Tax Officer, AUI, Bathinda on 30.11.2007 and Bathinda is a non-CGHS area. Wife of the applicant, Jaswant Kaur, remained hospitalized in emergency during the period from 19.08.2023 to 24.08.2023 at Gupta Hospital, Bathinda where she was treated for fracture femur left upper end/ ischemic heart disease/ TKR implant in situ both knee, and an expenditure of Rs. 80,750/- was incurred by the applicant. Thereafter, wife of the applicant was admitted in emergency in Pulse Advanced Heart & Critical Care Centre, Bathinda where whe was treated with antiplatelets, bronchodilators, antibiotics, analgesics, nebulization, Ppls and other supportive measures from 24.08.2023 to 27.08.2023 and expense of Rs. 93,935/- was incurred. Further sum of Rs. 1610/- was incurred on

31.08.2023.

3. It is submitted by the applicant that he submitted medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,76,295/- for reimbursement to respondent no. 2 vide representation dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure A-2), and request of the applicant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that there is no provision for entertaining the medical claim submitted by the applicant under relevant rules.

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. Unio