Order

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and a direction to the respondents to reimburse her medical expenses amounting to Rs. 3,96,145/-, along with interest. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

“(I) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-9 of Compilation No.1 to the O.A).

(II) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to reimburse entire genuine medical bills of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,96,145/-along with interest.

(III) To issue any such other and further order or direction which This Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case.

(IV) Cost of the application may also be awarded.”

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the widow of Late Dinesh Chandra Rai, who was working as a Stenographer at Akashvani, Gorakhpur, and died on 22.05.2021 due to COVID-19. During his illness, he underwent treatment at different hospitals, including BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur, where he was admitted on 16.05.2021 and remained under treatment until his death. The applicant submitted medical bills for reimbursement of the expenses incurred during his treatment. As the claim was not settled, she sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and thereafter pursued the matter through representations and a grievance petition. Vide order dated 14.02.2025, the respondents directed examination of the relevant medical documents. However, by the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, the respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the medical expenses pertained to a period after the retirement date of the applicant’s husband, i.e., 30.04.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s husband contracted COVID-19 while in service and continued to receive treatment without any break until his death on 22.05.2021. It was contended that the subsequent treatment was a continuation of the illness contracted during service and, therefore, the medical expenses could not have been rejected merely on the ground that the treatment continued beyond the date of retirement. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents had failed to properly examine the medical bills and supporting documents, despite the applicant’s repeated representations. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 SCC 83, to contend that the State has an obligation to ensure the health of its employees and that the applicant’s genuine medical reimbursement claim deserves consideration in accordance with law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the applicable rules governing medical attendance and reimbursement. It was contended that the applicant’s husband retired from service on superannuation on 30.04.2021 and had opted for CGHS facilities after retirement. Since the medical treatment in question was undertaken after his retirement, the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement of the said expenses from the respondents under the applicable rules. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the pension papers of Late Dinesh Chandra Rai were forwarded to the Pay and Accounts Office, Lucknow, on 12.10.2020, and the PPO was handed over to him on 12.04.2021. It has further been stated that he retired on 30.04.2021 and was admitted to Gorakhpur Chikitsalaya and Research Centre, Gorakhpur, on 07.05.2021, before being referred to BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur, on 16