CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CASE NO.: CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002
DATE OF DECISION: January 8, 2009
PROF. R.K. SINGHAL ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.
PRESENT: MR. KUNAL DAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR.A.D.S. JATTANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgement of Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 30.3.2001, vide which the
reimbursement of medical claim for a sum of Rs.78,958/- has been granted.
The petitioner who was working as a Superintending Engineer
in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh developed acute chest pain
on 15.4.1999 and was admitted to the Emergency Ward of PGI, Chandigarh.
He was discharged on the same day and was advised to undergo Coronary
Angiography. The petitioner got himself admitted in Apollo Hospital on
18.4.1999, however, after being discharged was admitted to Escorts
Hospital, New Delhi on 27.5.1999. The petitioner underwent Coronary
Artery Bypass Surgery at the Escorts Hospital on 27.5.1999 and was
discharged from the hospital on 2.6.1999.
The petitioner raised a bill amounting to Rs.1,73,300/- which
was the amount spent by him on his medical treatment. The petitioner was,
however, reimbursed an amount of Rs.78,958/-.
Being dis-satisfied with the reimbursement the petitioner filed
O.A. No.845-CH of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002 -2-
Chandigarh Bench which was dismissed vide impugned order dated
30.3.2001.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had
granted sanction to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 for taking treatment for
his heart disease from Escorts Hospital, New Delhi and therefore, the
respondents are bound to reimburse the entire expenses incurred by him.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement in Mrs. Surya
Pandit, IAS (retired) vs. State of Punjab, reported as (1995-3) PLR 683,
wherein it has been held that there can be no justification for limiting the
reimbursement of expenses to the rates of All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi.
The arguments of the petitioner have been controverted by the
counsel appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the respondents has
drawn our attention to Annexure R-2 which is a letter written by the
Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh dated
7.2.2001, whereby ex-post facto sanction was accorded to the petitioner to
undergo treatment at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New
Delhi, subject to the condition that he would be reimbursed the medical
charges as per rate of Government Hospitals of PGI/AIIMS New Delhi
under the provisions of Medical Attendance Rules and Instructions of the
Government.
Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the
petitioner being a Government employee is free to get himself treated at any
of the recognized hospitals in the country, however, he would be reimbursed
the medical expenses at AIIMS rates. It is submitted by the learned counsel
that in the present case although the petitioner has raised a bill of
CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002 -3-
Rs.1,73,300/-, but he would only be reimbursed at the AIIMS rates which
has already been paid to him. Learned counsel further submits that the
authority relied upon by the petitioner in Mrs. Surya Pandit’s case (supra) is
not applicable to the facts of the present case as according to the
Government Policy the medical reimbursement can only be given at the
AIIMS rates. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on a
Division Bench judgement of this Court in Raghuvir Prasad Mittal Vs.
State of Haryana and others, reported as 2008(3) SCT 362, wherein
reimbursement was given to the petitioner at the AIIMS rates, although he
petitioner was allowed to get himself treated from Bombay Hospital and
Research Centre, Mumbai.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
A perusal of the facts narrated above shows that the petitioner
has been given the medical reimbursement as per AIIMS rates. The
petitioner has not been able to point out any deficiency in the
reimbursement granted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not
been able to show any policy of the State Government whereby the
expenses which an employee incurs in the hospital on his treatment, the
same has to be reimbursed to him in total. Even if the petitioner would have
got himself treated abroad still, he would be entitled to reimbursement at the
AIIMS/PGI rates only. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the
impugned order (Annexure P-10) and accordingly the writ petition is
dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
January 8, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR)
Gulati JUDGE