Post covers Medical Reimbursement Claim Chandigarh CAT Bench Case citing Mohan Lal Gupta case affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. Thus retirees are covered for reimbursement of medical expenses.
Medical Reimbursement Claim of Retirees Government Employees.
Now let’s have the case
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No.60/866/2020 Date of decision: 11.11.2020
Also Read- K P Rao vs Indian Council Of Agricultural … on 6 August, 2019
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The pensioner is before this Court for invalidation of the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure A-1), whereby his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him has been turned down on the ground that pensioners are not covered under Rule 1 of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944.
ARGUMENT BY THE APPLICANT:
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the impugned view of the respondents is contrary to law settled by this Court and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India (W.P. (Civil) No.695/2015) decided on 13.04.2018. He argued that in a similar matter in the case of Baldev Raj vs. Union of India & Ors. vide order dated 18.10.2018, this Court rejected similar contention of the respondents in not disbursing amount to retirees. He also argued that this Court while deciding number of petitions has negated the similar view taken by the respondent department which has been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court by dismissing the writ petition in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Mohan Lal Gupta & Ors., 2018 (1) SCT 687. Thus, he pleaded that impugned order be quashed and set aside.
Also Read- Medical Charges Government Retired Employees CAT Case
The court has gone through the pleadings and have seen order relied upon by the applicant in the case of Baldev Raj (supra) and is of the view that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law as it is contrary to order passed by this Court in bunch of petition leading case being that of Mohan Lal Gupta (supra) affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court by dismissing the writ petition at the hands of UOI. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
Also Read- Rabinder Singh v. Union Of India | Central Administrative Tribunal
ORDER BY THE COURT:
The impugned order is quashed and set aside and matter may be remitted back to the respondents to re-appreciate the same in terms of policy, without raising plea that retirees are not covered for reimbursement of medical expenses. The above exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
CASE SUMMARY:
The present compliant has been filed before this Court for invalidation of the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure A-1), whereby there is a claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred which has been turned down on the ground that pensioners are not covered under Rule 1 of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944.
Also Read- CAT allows plea of 30 pensioners – Tribune India
This post is written by Gurleen Kaur Anand.
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.
More on 99888-17966.
