Government employees' entitlement to medical reimbursements under CGHS cannot be denied based on bureaucratic restraints, especially in emergency medical situations.

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)

The respondents in O.A. No. 258 of 2020 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, aggrieved by the Order dated 03.04.2023 have filed this Writ Petition.

2. O.A. No. 258 of 2020 had been filed by the respondent herein seeking a direction against the respondents therein (petitioners in this Writ Petition) to grant the balance medical reimbursement amount of Rs. 1,97,199/-. The Tribunal had granted the said relief and directed the respondents therein (petitioners in this Writ Petition) to process there claim and reimburse the said balance amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

3. Mr. G. Lakshminarayanan, the late husband of the respondent herein had joined CSIR as Junior Scientific Assistant on 23.09.1965 and retired as Scientist (EI) from Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CSIR-

CIMFR), Dhanbad on 30.09.2023 after serving for 38 years and 8 days. He underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) on 15.12.2017 at Apollo Hospitals, Chennai. Later, on 16.10.2019, he had to be admitted at Apollo Hospitals in an emergency state. He expired on 21.10.2019. The respondent submitted a claim for Rs.3/- lakhs. It was sanctioned for a sum of Rs.1,02,801/- in accordance with the CGHS rates and rejected for the balance amount of Rs.1,97,199/-. Placing reliance on the dictum laid down in the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha vs Union of India , reported in AIR 2018 SC 1975 : (2018) 16 SCC 187, which also related to a medical claim which had been rejected on the basis of the CGHS rates, the respondent herein filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal. The Order of the Tribunal dated 03.04.2023 allowing the Application is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

4. Mr. K. Ramananmoorthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court inShiva Kant Jha referred supra, had clarified that the relief granted in that case was with respect to that case alone. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the said position had been reiterated by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bina Saxena vs Union of India and others , reported in2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1265 : (2023) 5 AIR Bom R 479, wherein, while consideringShiva Kant Jha the High Court had held that the Supreme Court had exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India , which jurisdiction, the4 High Court and certainly, the Tribunal does not possess.

5. Learned Counsel further argued that the claim submitted had been processed in accordance with the CGHS rates. He pointed out that CSIR-CLRI employees, pensioners and their dependents availing medical facilities from CLRI dispensary are covered under the provisions of the Central Services (Medical Attendant) Rules and medical reimbursement is limited to CGHS rates. The learned Counsel therefore stated that the directions of the Tribunal would have to be interfered with.

6. Mr. K. Mohamed Hussen, learned Counsel for the respondent however argued that the respondent was eligible for reimbursement of the entire claim. He argued that the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha, referred supra, was directly applicable to the facts of this case and therefore urged that the Writ