- (1.) Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the original application filed by the respondent. In-fact, Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were not applicable to retired government officials.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 187, wherein, it was held as under:- "It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court." ;