- (1.) This petition challenges order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing medical reimbursement of the claim submitted by Late Smt. Kamla Devi mother of respondents No. 1 and 2 and widow of Shri Mohinder Nath Agnihotri, an employee of the railway administration.
(2.) Case set out in the original application was that Shri Mohinder Nath Agnihotri retired from service on 30.09.1987 and died on 16.1.1989. His widow became entitled to family pension and other benefits like medical claim etc. She was getting fixed medical allowance of Rs. 100/ -per month. She lost her elder son Pardeep Kumar and she was living with the widow of her deceased son with her two unmarried daughters. She came to know about Railway Retired Employees (Liberalized Health Scheme) (RELHS) framed on 23.10.1997, according to which, she was entitled to get aid from Railway Hospital. She applied for benefits of the scheme and also informed the bank to deduct the medical allowance of Rs. 100/ -being paid to her. The bank authorities informed the Railway Administration that they deducted the amount of Rs. 4100/ -paid to Smt. Kamla Devi from December, 1997 to April 2001. She had to undergo treatment for heart attack. She was admitted at Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar Cantt. and then shifted to Pruthi Hospital, duly recognized by the Railway Administration. She underwent open heart/bye -pass surgery from 1.3.2001 to 28.4.2001. She applied for reimbursement of medical expenses, but before her claim could be decided, she died on 25.7.2001. The legal heirs pursued the claim, which was rejected on 5.4.2004 on the ground that issuance of card was processed after taking of the treatment. Against the said rejection, the contesting respondents approached the Tribunal.
(3.) The Tribunal allowed the petition, relying upon judgments of Delhi High Court in V.K. Jagadhari v., 2006 (1) ATJ 282 and S.K. Sharma v/s. : 2002(64)DRJ620 . Relevant observations quoted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment are as under: The question of entitlement of government employee to medical reimbursement for medical treatment undergone has been the subject matter of several rulings of this Court. In one of the judgments reported as S.K. Sharma v/s. : 2002(64)DRJ620 , the Court after considering the rulings of the Supreme Court and other judgments of this Court held that a pensioner cannot be discriminated against merely because he has not opted for a CGHS Scheme and resides outside a non -CGHS area. The petitioner in that case, a non -card holder pensioner, residing in a non -CGHS area, after undergoing emergency medical treatment, had claimed in August, 1998 and stated that ex -post facto approval ought to have been granted. The petitioner had also sought for issuance of the card subsequent to undergoing the treatment. The court rejected a similar plea of the Central Government that the benefit was inadmissible (due to the patient living in a non -CGHS area, and not holding the card) and directed the reimbursement to be given. In a judgment reported similarly in Mohinder Pal Singh v/s. : 117(2005)DLT204 , this court held that even if membership under the scheme has not been processed and granted but the patient had undergone medical treatment, he would nevertheless be entitled to the benefits under the scheme.;