CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH

02.02.2026 HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

Jit Singh age 82 years son of Sh. Vir Singh r/o V.P.O. Hayat Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 143521 (Group—C)

…Applicant (BY ADVOCATE: Mr.Harish Chandra)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and IT. Department of Post, New Delhi

110001.

2. Post Master General, Area—II, Sector—17, Chandigarh. 160017.

3. Superintendent of Post Officers, Gurdaspur Division, Gurdaspur.

143521.

...Respondents (BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)

O R D E R(Oral)

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:

(i) Respondents be directed to reimburse Rs. 36,230/- + 2,76,959/- = 3,13,189/- being the expenses incurred by applicant on emergent treatment with 12% interest for delayed payment by set aside the order dt. 20.06.2025 (Annexure A—1)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.2004 as Postmaster (HSG-I) from Post Office, Gurdaspur Division, Gurdaspur. On 27.01.2025 the applicant suddenly suffered swear chest pain and breathing problem. In emergency the applicant was admitted to nearest Hospital Gurdaspur and due to critical condition the applicant was referred to Fortis—Escort Hospital, Amritsar. The applicant was admitted in the hospital and in emergency treatment, operation was done with installation of stunt on 30.01.2025. The total money spent for the treated was Rs. 3,13,189/-. The applicant being Central Government employee applied for reimbursement of the medical claim on 28.04.2025 to the concerned authority. But respondent no.3 rejected the claim of applicant by passing a non-speaking order.

3. The claim of the applicant regarding reimbursement of Medical Bill was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2025 stating that "the MR claim of the retired official is not admissible as per Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.

4. The applicant placed reliance upon Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India reported as 2008(2) SCT 239 and recent judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Shankar Lal Sharma reported as 2016(1) SCT 414. Applicant submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, he is entitled to Medical Reimbursement. He submitted that the action of respondents in rejecting the medical reimbursement claim by passing a non- speaking order is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot be sustained.

5. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant and supporting the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 stating that pensioner was getting Fixed Medical Allowance and Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rule 1944 does not apply on the retired Government Servant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material on records and gone through the judgments.

7. The plea of the respondents that Rule (1) of CS (MA) Rules

1944 does not cover the pensioners, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for medical reimbursement has already been negated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohan Lal Gupta (supra), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the petition filed by the Union of India. Following the decision aforementioned, this Tribunal recently allowed an identical case of Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 267/2021 decided on 19.07.2023) holding the applicant therein eligible to get medical reimbursement for indoor treatment taken for her spouse. A similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal in O.A No.060/00737/2017 and connected matters on 07.05.2018 and rejected the plea of the respondents therein that the pensioner was getting Fixed