Yadu Nath Sharan Singh v. Union of India — 1998 DIGILAW 663 (PAT)

Order With consent learned counsel for the parties were heard for final disposal of the writ petition. 2. In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner who is a former Judge of this Court is that the pending bills towards medical expenses and for travelling allowances for the period 1994 to 1997 have been illegally and arbitrarily kept withheld by the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Judge of this Court and retired in the year 1987. He is registered under Central Government Health Scheme (C.G.H.S.) vide C.G.H.S. Card No. 320740. His wife Abha Singh is a cancer patient and was operated for lung cancer on 3.3.1992 in Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Bombay by Dr. P.B. Desai, vide patient to EE-3487. Under the instruction of the said Doctor, she was required to go to Bombay for evaluation and treatment from time to time on the date fixed on the permission granted vide letter dated 10.9.1996. 4. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 30,932.75 as medical expenses, the break-up of which is as follows :- 1994 - Rs. 160.00 1995 - Rs. 700.00 1996 - Rs. 700.00 1997 - Rs. 29,37275 Total Rs. 30.932.75 The petitioner also incurred a sum of Rs. 76,6841 - towards travelling etc., the break-up of which is as follows :- 1994 - Rs. 1,876.00 1995 - Rs. 3,885.00 1996 - Rs. 21,465.00 1997 - Rs. 49,458.00 Total Rs. 76,684.00 It is stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, vide Office Memorandum No.S12016/577-CGHS, New Delhi, dated 21.9.1957 extended the medical facilities under the said Scheme to retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. 5. The petitioner submitted the entire bills along with the medical certificate granted by the Bombay Hospital but the same have not been cleared despite his making representations on 22.10.1997 and 1.3.1998. When the petitioner, however, failed to get any positive response from the respondents, he filed the present writ petition. 6. This Court vide order dated 4.5.1998 after hearing Counsel for the parties directed for ad hoc payment of Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Director General of Health Services-cum-Director, C.G.H.S. Government of India (respondent no. 2). 6. This Court vide order dated 4.5.1998 after hearing Counsel for the parties directed for ad hoc payment of Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Director General of Health Services-cum-Director, C.G.H.S. Government of India (respondent no. 2). From perusal of the communication dated 16.7.1998 sent by the Additional Director, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 5' to the said counter affidavit, it appears that the respondents are insisting for resubmission of bill in Form 'B' of Appendix XIV of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules. The other only objection taken in the said letter is in regard to hotel charges and telephone charges which, according to the respondents, are not admissible as per CGHS New Delhi Instructions/order. 8. With respect to above second objection, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provision under which the, petitioner can claim to be entitled for reimbursement of hotel charges and telephone charges during stay at Bombay. With respect to first technical objection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various documents annexed as Annexures 13, 14 series and 15 series to the rejoinder affidavit. It was further submitted that form Certificate 6' only contains information which are based on the hospital documents, copies whereof have already been submitted and have been annexed as Annexures 13, 14 series and 15 series herein also, and as such the same is only formal in nature. 9. Appendix XII contains instructions for the guidance of the Controlling Authorities to prevent abuse of medical reimbursement facilities. Under Clause 11, the Controlling Officer has been vested with the discretionary power to condone minor discrepancies by giving the benefit of doubt to the officials depending on the circumstances of each case. This power is to be exercised judiciously so as to distinguish cases of deliberate misuse as against cases of minor discrepancies, the bona fide of which are not in doubt. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the medical certificate, discharge summary certificate and other treatment details at Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre as also the bill and the receipts for payment of the charges for the above. The respondents have not even expressed any doubt about the genuineness of the aforementioned papers submitted by the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the medical certificate, discharge summary certificate and other treatment details at Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre as also the bill and the receipts for payment of the charges for the above. The respondents have not even expressed any doubt about the genuineness of the aforementioned papers submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner was right in his submission that the Certificate 'B' is nothing but only information based on the hospital documents and thus is only formal in nature. The petitioner is a retired Judge of the High Court and the genuineness of the documents submitted by him cannot be doubted after he held such a responsible constitutional office. 11. Under such circumstance, in my opinion, it was a fit case for exercise of the discretionary power under Clause 11 of the aforementioned instructions for condoning the minor discrepancy in not submitting the certificate in form certificate 6' and insisting for the same after such a long lapse of time. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the above extent and the respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner other than those relating to hotel charges and telephone charges during stay at Bombay and pay the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.