Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 985 (PNJ)

Hony. Capt. Bakhshish Singh v. Union Of India

2010-02-24

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2010
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1 The prayer in the present writ petition is for medical reimbursement of the medical claim made by the petitioner for full amount of Rs. 1,56,127/- for the treatment, which he got from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (in short "PGIMER, Chandigarh") for the implantation of permanent dual chamber pacemaker and hospitalisation and other ancillary bills. 2 Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was Hony. Captain in the Army and referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh, by the Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir, where he had reported on feeling un-easiness and tiredness. As the pulse of the petitioner was very low and there was complete blockage in the heart of the petitioner, as an emergency measure on his reference to the PGIMER, Chandigarh, he was admitted therein on 03.03.1999. He was discharged on 17.03.1999 after implantation of permanent dual chamber pacemaker. He contends that in the light of Instructions dated 28.03.1988 (Annexure-P-2), PGIMER, Chandigarh, is the hospital, which is recognised as Civil Hospital for specialised treatment to the service personnel and their families. According to these instructions, the rates as fixed and approved by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for CGHS beneficiaries would be applicable and payable, since the petitioner has not been granted the said rates, a direction be issued to respondents to release the total amount of re~imbursement, which comes to Rs.1,56,127/-, whereas only Rs.81,300/- had been re-imbursed to him on 06.03.2000. He on this basis prays that the present petition be allowed. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Lt. Col. M.L. Kohli v. Union of India 2001(1) S.C.T. 682, to support this contention. 3 On the other hand counsel for respondents submits that a specific stand has been taken by respondents in paras-4 and 5 in response to the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that the Instructions dated 28.03.1988 (Annexure-P-2) is only applicable to the service personnel and their families. These instructions are not applicable to the ex- servicemen nor are they covered under the said Instructions, therefore, no benefit under the said Instructions can be granted to the petitioner. These instructions are not applicable to the ex- servicemen nor are they covered under the said Instructions, therefore, no benefit under the said Instructions can be granted to the petitioner. He submits that for the benefit of ex-servicemen and their dependents, they are given financial assistance for treatment for serious diseases like, heart, cancer, renal, prostrate, and joint replacement through Non- Governmental funds, which are raised by donation received from Armed Forces Flag Day Fund. In the light of the increase in number of requests, the Kendriya Sainik Board is not in a position to provide 100% financial assistance to exservicemen as there is paucity of funds. The financial assistance, which is provided from time to time, is dependent upon the availability of funds and accordingly financial assistance varies from time to time. He refers to the affidavit dated 27.12.2004 filed by Wg. Cdr. R. Ranjan son of S.K. Ranjan, Director, Kendriya Sainik Board in this regard. He on this basis submits that as has been mentioned in para-7 that the petitioner had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,56,127/- in respect of pacemaker implantation. The cost of the pacemaker was Rs.1,35,500/-, which was the qualifying amount of financial assistance. The treatment, which was done on the petitioner, was prior to 09.06.1999 and at that time the ex-servicemen were entitled to 60 per cent of the expenditure incurred by him on medical treatment. As per the entitlement of the petitioner, 60 per cent of the expenditure incurred by the petitioner was paid to him as financial assistance, which comes to Rs.81,300/- from the Armed Forces Flag Day Fund. He on this basis submits that the benefit, which has been claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted to him as all dues have been paid to the petitioner, which were admissible under the law. 4 I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5 In the light of categoric stand of respondents that Instructions dated 28.03.1988 (Annexure-P-2) are not applicable to the ex-servicemen, the claim of the petitioner, which is solely based on those instructions cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the said Instructions are applicable to the case of the petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, Lt. Col. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the said Instructions are applicable to the case of the petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, Lt. Col. M.L. Kohli v. Union of India (supra), cannot be of much help to the petitioner in the light of the fact that Honble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others, 1998(2) R.S.J. 313, has held that it is a policy matter to grant reimbursement of the dues, which is depending upon the financial position of the concerned Government. 6 Here in the present case, respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioner being an ex-servicemen is entitled to financial assistance from the funds raised by donations and received from Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, which is purely a welfare measure. The Kendriya Sainik Board, in the light of the funds available with it, is not in a position to provide 100 per cent financial assistance to ex-servicemen. The amount of financial assistance increases or decreases depending upon the funds available with the Board. As per affidavit dated 27.12.2004, filed by respondents, till 08.06.1999 Officers and JCOs and other ranks were provided financial assistances for medical treatment upto 60 % of the admissible amount. From 09.06.1999 to 07.11.2000, the assistance was 60% and 80% for officers and JCOs and other ranks respectively for medical treatment and from 08.11.2000 onwards, the said assistance was 75% for officers and 90% for JCOs and other ranks. On the day when the petitioner was operated upon and for the period for which he has claimed medical reimbursement, the assistance which was provided, was 60% as he fell in the category of JCOs/other ranks. The admissible claim, i.e., 60% of his total admissible amount, i.e., Rs.81,300/-, had been paid to the petitioner. Affidavit of Mr. K.K.Dwivedi, Director, Kendriya Sainik Board, dated 08.08.2005 states that no ex-serviceman has been given 100% financial assistance for treatment of serious diseases by the Kendriya Sainik Board from Armed Forces Flag Day Fund. The financial assistance is purely a welfare measure and is governed by the Managing Committee which issues guidelines with regard to the extent of financial assistance. The petitioner has been provided maximum eligible financial assistance as per the guidelines of the Managing Committee which existed then. The financial assistance is purely a welfare measure and is governed by the Managing Committee which issues guidelines with regard to the extent of financial assistance. The petitioner has been provided maximum eligible financial assistance as per the guidelines of the Managing Committee which existed then. 7 In view of the above position/the claim which the petitioner was entitled to as per decision taken by the Board depending upon the availability of funds has been disbursed to him, the contention of counsel for the petitioner, thus, cannot be accepted. 8 There is no merit in the present writ petition and, therefore, the same stands dismissed.