Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1366 (GUJ)

Union of India v. Ansuyaben Jasubhai Nayak

2016-07-19

A.S.SUPEHIA, M.R.SHAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Department, original respondents, has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, passed in Original Application No. 432/14, by which the learned Tribunal has, after following its own earlier decision dated 03.04.2014 passed in Original Application No. 369/13, directed the petitioner-Department to consider the request of the original applicant-widow of a retired employee, for reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 72,603/- towards the medical bills and further directed to reimburse the admissible amount as per the Government approved rates. 2. That the deceased husband of the respondent herein was appointed as a Group-D in Postal Department at Mehsana w.e.f. 02.02.1982 and he voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 15.09.2002. That in the last week of November, 2011, due to sudden pain in his kidneys, he was immediately taken to Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Ahmedabad, and was under treatment from 27.11.2013 to 04.03.2014. That subsequent to his recovery from the illness, he submitted a representation along with a bill claiming reimbursement for a sum of Rs. 17,767/- on 03.01.2014 to Superintendent of Post Offices, Mehsana. That thereafter he died on 05.03.2014 leaving behind his widow-respondent herein, who submitted one another medical claim for a sum of Rs. 54,836/- to Superintendent of Post Offices, Mehsana, which bills were not accepted stating that a suitable reply would be sent to her. However, vide order No. E2/5JRN/Pensioner/13.14 dated 15.04.2014 the Department rejected the said claim of reimbursement. Therefore, the respondent herein-original applicant, widow of the deceased employee, approached the learned Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No. 432/14 requesting to quash and set aside the said order and directed the authorities, the present petitioners, to pay the amount of the aforesaid bills to her. 3. That the said Original Application was opposed by the authorities by submitting that entitlement of the deceased husband of the applicant for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her is only to avail a fixed medical allowance of Rs. 300/-. 3. That the said Original Application was opposed by the authorities by submitting that entitlement of the deceased husband of the applicant for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her is only to avail a fixed medical allowance of Rs. 300/-. That the reason assigned by the authority for denying the medical reimbursement is that the deceased husband of the applicant had taken voluntarily retirement from the Department and that at the time of applying for voluntary retirement, the employee could have become a member of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) and could have availed the facilities under CGHS. That at the time of voluntary retirement of the deceased husband of the applicant, he had three options viz. (i) to continue to get the benefits of CS (MA) Rules, 1944; (ii) to become a member of the CGHS; and (iii) to take monthly fixed amount given by the Department. That at the time of tendering voluntary retirement, the deceased husband of the applicant could have become a member of CGHS and in order to become a member of CGHS after retirement, the deceased husband of the applicant was required to pay a fixed amount to the Department, but he did not pay any such amount and thereby he failed to become a member of CGHS. 4. The learned Tribunal negatived the above contentions and relying upon its own earlier decision dated 03.04.2014 passed in Original Application No. 369/13, by which similar contention on behalf of the Department was negatived and consequently the learned Tribunal directed the Department to reimburse the amount of Rs. 72,603/- towards the medical treatment of the deceased husband of the applicant, and accordingly the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application No. 432/14 and has quashed and set aside order No. E2/5JRN/Pensioner/13.14 dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Department, by which the original applicant-widow of the deceased employee was denied her medical claim and consequently the learned Tribunal has directed the present petitioner-Department to reimburse the aforesaid medical bills, however, the admissible amount as per the Government approved rates. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Department has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 and 227 of the of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri P.Y. Divyeshwar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner authorities, has reiterated what was submitted before the learned Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Department has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 and 227 of the of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri P.Y. Divyeshwar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner authorities, has reiterated what was submitted before the learned Tribunal. He has submitted that the deceased employee did not opt for CGHS benefit and opt to get Rs. 300/- per month towards the fixed medical allowance and, therefore, he shall not be entitled to the medical reimbursement of the aforesaid medical bills for the medical treatment taken by the deceased employee. 6. On the other hand learned advocate Shri Y.M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original applicant-widow of the deceased employee, has submitted that as such the judgment and order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 369/13, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Tribunal, has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15702/14. 7. It is further submitted by Shri Y.M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original applicant, that as such identical question came to be considered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 32770/04 and other allied writ petitions and after considering the entire scheme and even considering the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, it is held by Hon'ble Madras High Court that the payment of monthly allowance of Rs. 100/- (now enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month) to retired employees is only to provide for day-to-day treatment. However, payment of such allowance cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of reimbursement for medical expenses incurred as indoor patient. It is submitted that it is further held that denial of CGHS Card to a retired employee on the ground that he has retired from a place not covered under CGHS is improper. Therefore, relying upon the decision dated 18.06.2015 of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 15702/14 as well as decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the original applicant is the widow of a retired employee. It is also not in dispute that after voluntary retirement the deceased employee got kidney problem and was admitted to Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Ahmedabad, where he had taken treatment. That reimbursement of the aforesaid medical bills for medical treatment is denied on the ground that the deceased retired employee did not become CGHS beneficiary and he opted to avail fixed medical allowance of Rs. 300/- per month. However, relying upon its own earlier decision dated 03.04.2014 in Original Application No. 369/13, which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15702/14, the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner-Department to reimburse the medical bills for medical treatment, however, as per the Government approved rates. At this stage it is required to be noted that the aforesaid decision has been accepted by the Department and the matter is not carried further. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case when relying upon the decision in Original Application No. 369/13 in which similar submission was made and negatived by the learned Tribunal, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, when the learned Tribunal has directed the original respondent-Department to reimburse the medical bills for the treatment taken by the deceased employee, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error which calls for any interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15702/14, after considering the entire scheme and even the plight of the retired employees, who need medical treatment at the advanced age, more particularly as an indoor patient, have negatived the similar contention. 12. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.