- (1.) HAVING regard to the circumstances, while allowing the application (IA No. 623/2013), this petition has been considered finally at this stage itself.
(2.) PUT in brief, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the employee late Shri C.R. Mehta (now represented by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4) retired in the year 1981 as an officer of the Income Tax Department and was settled at Jodhpur. On 04.01.1998, he was advised hospitalisation and coronary angiography. As no such facility was available at Jodhpur, he proceeded to Delhi and got his treatment at Escorts Hospital wherefor, he was charged at Rs. 1,77,300/-. The late employee, while submitting that he had spent another Rs. 12,700/- on medicines and travelling, made a claim for reimbursement of the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/-. It was, inter alia, the case of the applicant that there was no Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) at Jodhpur and hence, he had rightfully taken the treatment in the Escorts Hospital at Delhi. The claim for reimbursement was, however, declined by the department with the observations that Central Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944 ('the Rules of 1944') were not applicable to the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred Original Application ('OA') No.124/2004, which has been considered and allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT'), while rejecting the contention of the respondents about applicability of the Office Memorandum said to be operating against the claim of the applicant. The CAT has, inter alia, observed and directed in its order dated 08.03.2005 as under:- "8. It is found that the ailment and its treatment have taken place, much before the 2004 O.M. was issued. The O.A. was also preferred before that. The latter O.M. also mentions that some pensioners had obtained favourable orders from Courts on the basis of 1998 O.M. There is nothing to indicate that the earlier O.M. has been withdrawn. At the most the clarificatory O.M. can only have prospective effect leaving this claim to be governed by the earlier arrangement. 9. In this background, the impugned communication dated 21.11.2003 is set aside. The respondents are directed to scrutinize the claim of Rs. 1,90,000/- under C.S. (M.A.) Rules, 1944 for reimbursement as any other serving employee. For items for which there are no prescribed rates under C.S. (M.A.) Rules, the respondent shall consult the Joint Director, C.G.H.S., Jaipur and act accordingly." By way of this writ petition, the Department has questioned the order dated 08.03.2005 so passed by the CAT, inter alia, with the submissions that the applicant was a retired employee of the Government of India and as he was not residing in an area covered by CGHS, the Rules of 1944 were not applicable to him.
(3.) DURING the course of submissions, however, it is an admitted position that the other petitions of similar nature, as filed by the department, have since been considered and dismissed by this Court; and further, that the matters of the similar nature reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court where, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in a batch of petitions for special leave to appeal, led by SLP (Civil) No. 10659/2005. It is also pointed out during the course of submissions that the same employee had filed yet another OA bearing number 35/2006 in relation to his other medical expenditure, which was allowed by the CAT on 28.04.2010. In the said matter too, the present petitioners preferred a writ petition, being CWP No. 06824/2010, which was considered and dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 06.05.2011. In the order dated 06.05.2011, this Court has, inter alia, observed as under:- "7. In our considered opinion the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason. Firstly, this was not a case where Union of India should have considered itself to be an aggrieved with the impugned directions and felt difficulty in its implementation. Secondly looking to the nature of undisputed controversy and bonafides of the respondent herein, the Union of India should have taken humanitarian approach towards their employee rather than to find fault firstly in the bills in the garb of interpretation of Ruels and later in the order of the Tribunal. Thirdly, the Tribunal rightly took note of the facts of the case, examined them in the light of the rules governing the issue for passing the impugned directions and lastly we find that there is no error committed by the Tribunal on facts or while interpreting the rule in question, which resulted in passing the impugned directions. 8. As observed supra, here is a case, where Additional Commissioner of Income Tax after retirement developed heart problem due to which he had to undergo treatment and was required to incur medical expenditure. He later died leaving his widow as his legal representative. In a case of this nature, the Union of India instead of finding fault in his case on the pretext of interpretation of the rule governing the issue, should have released the payment in favour of respondent in the first instance itself. If they did not do so, and for that the applicant was required to file the original application, which on being allowed by issuance of impugned directions, the issue should not have been pursued by filing writ petition. It is only if the Union of India had found that applicant had indulged in claiming false or inflated claim or had filed forged bills, then in such eventuality, they would have been justified in rejecting his claim. Such was not the case set up by the writ petitioner. 9. The aforesaid discussion is therefore, more than sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. We however while parting direct the 4 Departmental Authorities (writ petitioners herein) to ensure compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in favour of applicant i.e. widow of deceased employee within a period of three months if not so far complied with." ;