Last Updated on March 11, 2026 by Satish Mishra

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) handles CGHS cases, primarily focusing on medical reimbursement disputes, coverage for non-empanelled hospitals, and administrative delays, ensuring retirees receive benefits. Key rulings emphasize that emergency, life-saving treatment in non-empanelled hospitals must be reimbursed at CGHS rates.

Key Aspects of CAT CGHS Cases:

• Reimbursement Rights: Supreme Court rulings and CAT decisions affirm that CGHS benefits are a right, covering both empanelled and non-empanelled hospitals, especially in emergencies.
• Medical Reimbursement Limits: While full reimbursement is often sought, tribunals often restrict reimbursement to approved CGHS rates for treatment taken at non-empanelled private hospitals.
• Procedural Mandates: Courts have directed authorities to issue reasoned and speaking orders within specific timeframes (e.g., 2 months) when handling representations for CGHS cards or reimbursement.
• Administrative Disputes: Cases often involve challenging decisions regarding the rejection of claims, delay in payment, or mandatory registration in specific cities. 

For specific legal advice, one should consult the Central Administrative Tribunal website or a legal professional. 

This post is a summary of judgment wherein the applicant submitted that the representation seeking issuance of CGHS card to avail indoor medical facilities, as claimed in the present O.A, is pending consideration with the Competent Authority.

He suffered a statement that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide his claim in accordance with the law. The Court held, “we deem it appropriate to dispose of the O.A., in limine, with a direction to the Competent Authority, amongst the respondents, to consider and decide the indicated representation (Annexure A-8) of the applicant in terms of OM dated 21.08.2015, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

Also Read- R.S. Giri Assistant [Retd vs Union Of India

Judgment digest:

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH

O.A. No.060/00091/2020

Applicant: 

N.K. Bhalla son of A.P.Bhalla, aged about 66 years, retired as Deputy Commissioner from Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, an autonomous body of Ministry of HRD Govt. of India and presently pensioner of KVS and resident of House No. 345, MDC, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana, – 134109 Senior Citizen (Group A)

Respondents:

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011.
2. The Director-General, Central Government Health Services (CGHS), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001.
3. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh

Marg, New Delhi – 110016 through its Commissioner.

4. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, SCO 72- 73, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh through its Deputy Commissioner.

Quorum: 

HON’BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER (A)

 Also Read- SUDHA BHARTI v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHTHAN 

Facts and evidence presented by both parties.

At the very outset, the applicant, who is appearing in person, submitted that the representation dated 05.06.2019 (Annexure A-8), seeking issuance of a CGHS card to avail indoor medical facilities, as claimed in the present O.A, is pending consideration with the Competent Authority. He, therefore, suffered a statement that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide his claim in accordance with the law. He has also cited a case of one similarly situated person Smt. Sudha Bharti, who has been granted the relevant benefit, in compliance with a direction dated 06.10.2016 by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in and O.A (No. 2472/2016), directing the respondents to consider her case in terms of OM dated 21.08.2015 by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

 Also Read- R P BATHLA v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHTHAN

Judgment:

In the wake of the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the O.A., in limine, with a direction to the Competent Authority, amongst the respondents, to consider and decide the indicated representation (Annexure A-8) of the applicant in terms of OM dated 21.08.2015, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The order so passed be duly communicated to the applicant. Needless to mention that the disposal of the O.A. shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merit of the case. No costs.

Also Read- OA No. 180/00140/2021 – Central Administrative Tribunal

This post is written by Riya Singh.

For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview  included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.

For more info, call 9988817966.