IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.37420 of 2025

Dated: 08.12.2025

Between:

Union of India,

Representing by the Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,

Prasar Bharati, New Delhi,

and another. …Petitioners

and

The Central Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad Bench,

HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad,

Represented by its Registrar,

and another.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General

of India, appears for the petitioners.

2. Union of India and another have preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2025 passed in

OA/021/236/2022 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”).

3. The case relates to medical reimbursement to respondent No.2 - employee of petitioner No.2, who was the applicant before the learned Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, “the employee”). During COVID-19, in an emergency condition he was admitted as an in-patient with un- controlled DM, HTN, Bronchial Asthma etc., in Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Secunderabad. Fortunately, he survived and was discharged on 08.04.2021. His wife also suffered high degree of COVID- 19 RTPCR positive and was treated for severe medical complications in the same hospital. She also survived and was discharged on 25.04.2021. The only mistake that the employee did was not to inform the department while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The hospital undisputedly was an empanelled hospital in respect of CGHS beneficiaries. The bills of Rs.21,39,821/- were reimbursed only to the extent of Rs.3,47,678/- by petitioner No.2 by the proceedings dated 20.12.2021. The balance claim of Rs.17,92,143/- was rejected. With this grievance, the employee approached the learned Tribunal. The matter was argued on merits. Learned Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Karnataka v. R.Vivekananda Swamy, (2008) 5 SCC 328, Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India (W.P (Civil) No.694/2015, dated 13.04.2018) and other decisions, including the instructions dated 15.06.2020 of the Government of Telangana, which provided ceiling on prices for treatment of COVID-19 in private and empanelled hospitals. The hospital has ignored the Government Order and overcharged the employee. Learned Tribunal, on consideration of the materials on record in depth, observed that the employer should not have restricted the reimbursement claimed by the employee as raised by the hospital, which is empanelled with the State Government authorities. It also observed that the employer can take action against the hospital for overcharging the CGHS beneficiaries rather than punishing its own employees by not sanctioning the amount claimed, since the treatment was already obtained and payment had already been made by the employee. Learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to reconsider and settle the claim of the employee with full reimbursement within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

4. On behalf of the petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that as per Office Memorandum dated 13.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, CGHS empanelled hospitals cannot refuse to provide treatment to bona fide beneficiaries in emergency cases and other eligible categories of beneficiaries on credit basis without valid ground, as it would attract disqualification. They would also not refuse admission or demand an advance payment from the CGHS beneficiaries or their family members and would provide credit facilities to the patients. He has also referred to the Office Memorandum dated 09.11.2017 which relates to the procedure for treatment at private hospitals empanelled under CGHS/Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. Learned Deputy Solicitor General