CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Original Application No.060/00130/2020 Pronounced on:06.05.2024 Reserved on: 22.04.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

Nitesh Kumar son of Late Shri Mukhtiar Singh, aged 23 years, working in the office of 359 Coy ASC (Supp) Type-G, Chandimandir (Panchkula).

Haryana-160101 (Group-c).

....Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Suresh Verma)

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110011

2. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (WC), Sector 9, Chandigarh-

160009

3. Officer Incharge, 359 Coy ASC (Sup), Pin-905359 C/o 56 ΑΡΟ.

905359.

... .Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur)

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(a) Quash the order dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure A-1) vide which the claim of the applicant for full reimbursement of medical expenses on treatment of his deceased father of applicant has been rejected.

(b) Issue direction to the respondents to reimburse the full medical expenses incurred by the applicant on his deceased father’s treatment with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due to the actual date of payment.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant Nitesh Kumar, is working as a Civilian employee (Chowkidar) with the respondent department. His service conditions are governed under the Central Civil Service Rules and medical facilities are governed by the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. The father of the applicant suffered paralytic attack and was admitted in emergency ward of Patna Medical College & Hospital (PMCH), Patna, where it was diagnosed that he had got cardiac problem. He was referred to Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology (IGIC), Patna on 20.08.2018. On the advice of the IGIC, Patna, the applicant’s father was admitted in emergency of Udayaan Hospital, Patna, where he was put on ventilator. However, the said hospital was not having Cardiac Doctor and as such it was advised to shift patient to some other Hospital, where facility was available. Thereafter, the patient was taken to Ruban Memorial Hospital, Patna, where all facilities were available and the patient was treated there from 22.08.2018 to 24.09.2018. The applicant’s father expired on 26.09.2018 in IGIMS, Patna. The applicant submitted the medical claim of Rs.9,66,129/- on 11.11.2018, against which he was reimbursed Rs.2,05,125/- only. On enquiring from the department, it was informed vide letter dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure A-1) that the expenses incurred on patient for treatment taken from PMCH was reimbursed in full while the treatment in private hospitals Udayaan Hospital and Ruban Hospital was restricted as per Government/CGHS rates, as per rule 8 of Appendix VIII of CS(MA) Rules 1944. The applicant served a legal notice dated

31.10.2019 (Annexure A-4) praying for balance amount of medical reimbursement claim, which was replied by the respondents vide letter dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure A-5) reiterating their stand as in Annexure A-1.

3. The contention of the applicant is that it is on the advice of Government Hospitals and due to non availability of facilities in Government Hospital, the family members of patient had taken him to Private Hospital and emergency stands certified by medical authorities, therefore, the reimbursement claim is genuine and the respondents have not even disputed till date about the genuineness of the claim, hence in terms of the CC (MA) Rules, the applicant is entitled to full reimbursement of the amount. Reliance has been placed upon judgments in the cases of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India & Others, 2018 (2) SCT 529, Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors, 1996 (1) SLR (SC) 786, State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla, 1997 (2) SCC 83, State of Punjab Vs. Prem Kumar 2001 (4) SCT 404, Amina K