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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16120

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Deptt Of Posts – Respondent
O.A./537/2023



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH th HYDERABAD, this the 4 day of August, 2025 HON’BLE Mrs. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER R. Mohan, S/o R. Venkata Ramanaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Postman, Stonehousepet S.O., R/o H. No. 27-5-182, Nirmala Medical Street, Balajinagar, Nellore – 524 002.

... Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. B. Gurudas)

Vs

1. Union of India, rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Vijayawada – 520 013.

3. The Postmaster General, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada – 520 003.

4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nellore Division, Nellore – 524 001.

… Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. M. Swarna, Addl. CGSC)

---

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon’ble Hon’ble Shalini Misra, Administrative Member)

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“i) to call for the records relating to impugned orders No. AC/Medical bills/8-2022/Dlgs dated 3.7.2023 and No. AC/Medical bills/RM/8-

2022/Dlgs dated 3.7.2023 (Annexures IV & V);

(ii) to declare the impugned orders dated 3.7.2023 as illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare on emergency treatment in CGHS empanelled/private hospitals;

(iii) to direct the respondents to sanction and reimburse the medical claim amount of Rs.5,37,786/- towards treatment of applicant’s wife Smt. K. Poornima and Rs.1,34,120/- towards applicant’s own treatment, along with interest; and (iv) to pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts and contentions of the applicant are that he is serving as a Postman at Stonehousepet S.O., Nellore under the Department of Posts. On 15.08.2022, his wife Smt. K. Poornima suddenly fell seriously ill with dengue fever accompanied by shock, creating a life-threatening emergency that required immediate medical intervention. Unable to wait for formal procedures, the applicant rushed her to Apollo Hospital, Nellore after securing verbal permission over phone from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nellore, as every moment was critical. The treating doctors at Nellore, finding her condition rapidly deteriorating, strongly advised immediate transfer to Apollo Hospital, Chennai for specialist care, advanced facilities, and better chances of survival, following which she was shifted by ambulance on 16.08.2022 and remained under intensive treatment until discharge on 23.08.2022. The total expenditure incurred was Rs.5,37,786/-, which was initially borne by his mother-in-law on the applicant’s assurance of repayment once reimbursed. The applicant contended that the entire treatment was taken in bona fide emergency circumstances with no opportunity to fulfil prior formalities, and he promptly submitted the medical claim with supporting documents along with representations dated 16.08.2022 (informing about the admission), 28.11.2022 and 12.01.2023, repeatedly requesting the authorities to take a sympathetic view and condone any procedural lapses. He further contended that shortly thereafter, he himself contracted dengue fever and had to be admitted at Medicover Hospital, Nellore from 26.08.2022 to 28.08.2022, incurring Rs.1,34,120/-, and submitted a separate claim with similar prayer. The rejection of both claims vide impugned orders dated 03.07.2023 without assigning any reasons and without appreciating the genuine emergency supported by discharge summaries and emergency certificates is arbitrary, mechanical and violative of principles of natural justice and the spirit of CGHS guidelines that permit relaxation in deserving hardship cases.

3. The respondents, in their detailed reply including the Brief History of the Case submitted by them, contended that the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. In respect of the case of wife of th

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