SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 603

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Chandan Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
North Central Railway – Respondent
O.A./1482/2024



Open Court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD *********

Original Application No. 1482 of 2024 Allahabad this the 16th day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J Chandan Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri Om Prakash Singh, presently working as Dy. CIT (Deputy Chief Inspector of Ticket), North Central Railway, Kanpur. Resident of House No. 488, Triveni Nagar, Kanpur.

Applicant By Advocates: Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra Shri Rajesh Kumar.

Vs.

1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj.

3. Chief Medical Director, North Central Railway, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj.

4. Chief Medical Superintendent, North Central Railway, Kanpur.

Respondents By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Ojha

O R D E R

Shri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical claim to the tune of Rs.69,496/- along with 18% interest on account of emergency surgery of wife of applicant namely Mrs. Sushmita Singh, by praying the following relief(s):

-

“(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses / claim of the applicant amounting Rs. 69496/- along with 18% interest from the date it was submitted till the date of actual payment.

(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant. (iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the applicant is working as Deputy C.I.T. at Kanpur under the North Central Railway. The applicant is the beneficiary of free medical facility from the railway department. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the wife of applicant had been suffering with some problem in her left ear for which treatment was taken from the Railway Hospital. The treatment was given by Dr. Urvashi Yadav, Assistant Divisional Medical Officer, N.C. Railway, Kanpur Railway Hospital. However, on account of sudden emergency, she has approached to the empanelled hospital by the railways namely ‘Regency Hospital Limited’, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that on account of emergency admission, the wife of applicant has undergone tympanomastoid surgery and thereafter a bill for surgery amounting to Rs.69,496/-, which was paid to the Regency Hospital and same was submitted for reimbursement to the respondents’ department, however, the reimbursement has not been paid till date. He has further submitted that the bill was returned by the railway department because there was no referral letter and accordingly same has been denied. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the certificate dated 28.08.2023 issued by the Regency Hospital Limited vide which it has been stated by the empanelled hospital that the wife of applicant Mrs Susmita Singh was admitted in emergency on 28.08.2023 at 10.17 A.M. and after diagnosis, there is need of right tympanomastoid surgery hence, the surgery was performed immediately and the emergency certificate/letter was issued by the Regency Hospital Limited on 28.08.2023.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of applicant has been denied on account of non-referral and same was not a emergency case and it was not a plan get surgery hence, the applicant is not entitled for reimbursement.

5. Considering the submission of counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to treatment of applicant’s wife as she had been under the treatment of Railway Hospital and later on she has approached, on account of referral, to Regency. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top