ORDER
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following relief:
To set aside the impugned order No. Bgt/MA/DV/04 dated 30.3.2005 passed by 3rd respondent and set aside the same insofar as the TA amount is concerned by declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for waival of recovery of the TA advance sanctioned and paid to the applicant and thereby collecting a sum of Rs. 10,072/- towards the TA advance without approving the TA bills preferred by the applicant as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, malice in law and without application of mind, inhumane, being violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to approve the TA bills submitted by the applicant in connection with the treatment of the cardiac problem taken in NIMS hospital, Hyderabad and to arrange for the payment of Rs. 10,072/- to the applicant forthwith including costs for the mental agony, financial loss which the applicant suffered on account of the respondents.
2. Heard Mr. Krishna Devan, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Y. Vivekananda Swamy learned Counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the facts of the case and material papers placed before me. I have also gone through the pleadings.
3. The applicant while working as Sub Postmaster, Chittoor Market Post office suffered severe chest pain and approached the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor on 28.05.01 who referred the patient to higher institution for further treatment and evaluation which can be evident from Annexure-1 to the counter reply filed by the respondents to the OA. While referring the case to the higher institution the Medical Specialist had given a note that “It is unsafe for this patient to travel alone. Hence he is advised to take escort.” It is seen from the order of 3rd respondent dated 01.06.2001, which is enclosed at page 10 of the OA, that as per the desire of the applicant to take treatment at NIMS, the same was permitted by the 3rd respondent i.e. Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Chittoor Division to take treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad However, it is evident from the order that while permitting the applicant to take treatment at NIMS he was also permitted to take one family member as escort to Hyderabad as desired by him. A mention is also made there that applicant may submit TA bill for the family member who will be accompanying him. Accordingly the applicant submitted his TA bills for self and one family member as escort and the TA advances were sanctioned by the respondents on all those occasions on which the applicant has to go to NIMS, Hyderabad to the extent of Rs. 11,000/- It is stated by the applicant that initially the Postmaster General, Kurnool, also sanctioned an amount of Rs. 90,000/- in favour of the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad vide letter dated 8.6.2001. The applicant underwent treatment for heart surgery from 4.6.01 to 18.8.01 at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The medical advance of Rs. 90,000/- which was sanctioned earlier was passed for Rs. 85,434/- on 7.09.01 and was paid. It is not disputed that the bills claimed by the applicant are all settled.
4. It is the case of the applicant that with regard to TA amount in respect of applicant and escort for going and returning from NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent vide the orders which are noted below had sanctioned Rs. 11,000/- as advance of TA in connection with the medical checkup of the applicant along with an escort for treatment in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad.
i) Bgt/MA/DV/2001 dated 01.06.2001 Rs. 2,000
ii) Bgt/MA/DV/2001 dated 13.07.2001 Rs. 800
iii) Bgt/MA/DV/2001 dated 06.11.2001 Rs. 1,000
iv) Bgt/MA/DV/2002 dated 27.02.2002 Rs. 2,000
v) Bgt/MA/DV/2002 dated 13.09.2002 Rs. 2,000
vi) Bgt/MA/DV/2003 dated 17.04.2003 Rs. 2,000
vii) Bgt/MA/DV/2003 dated 31.10.2003 Rs. 1,200
5. Having drawn the said amount as TA advance, and after taking treatment in the said hospital only, the applicant had submitted bills for Rs. 10,072/- and the remaining has been returned duly. Thus the amount of advance taken and the expenditure incurred in connection with the TA has been duly accounted for by the applicant but the 3rd respondent has chosen not to approve the said TA bills. The applicant vide order No. Bgt/MA/DV/2001 dated 1.4.04 of the 3rd respondent was directed to obtain counter signature of the Chief Medical Officer, (District Medical & Health Officer) on his present claim i.e. reimbursement of medical expenditure of Rs. 3,677/- in connection with the post treatment checkup in the same hospital for the same ailment and was also directed to credit back the TA paid to him in this case. The 3rd respondent vide order dated 5.7.04 informed that the objection to obtain counter signature of DM & HO in regard to the reimbursement of medical bill for post treatment checkups and to recover the amount of TA, has been approved by the 2nd respondent and hence applicant was ordered to comply with the the above objection and also to credit the amount of Rs. 10,072/- towards TA.
6. The applicant again submitted representations dated 23.10.2004 and 3.1.2005 addressed to the 2nd respondent and sought for waiver of the recovery of the said amount. But the 3rd respondent vide order dated 30.3.2005 rejected the request of the applicant of not to recover TA paid to him in connection with the treatment of ailment in NIMS hospital and directed him to credit Rs. 10,072/- Questioning the said order of the 3rd respondent which is enclosed at page 9 of the OA the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for the aforesaid relief.
7. It is seen from the order of the Senior Supdt. of Post Offices dated 02.06.2004 enclosed as Annexure A-5 to the counter reply filed by the respondents that applicant was referred to the higher institution for further treatment and evaluation for his heart disease, he sought permission from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices who had permitted the applicant to go to NIMS Hospital for treatment and was asked to submit TA bills for his family member who accompanied him and the bills submitted by the applicant was sanctioned by the then Senior Supdt. of Post offices. It is also evident from Annexure A-3 enclosed along with the OA that the then Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Chittoor Division, not only permitted the applicant to make TA bills he also sanctioned the TA advance of Rs. 2,000/- under the provisions of Rule 410 of the P&T Volume (Second edition). However, after retirement of the then Sr. Superintendent of Post offices, when his successor has joined, he found that his predecessor has granted permission to take treatment at NIMS, Hyderabad and that the medical reimbursement case for the Govt. hospital’s reference dated 28.05.2001 stood settled. Thereafter, the applicant attended NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, several times for periodical checkups which can be seen from the dates mentioned in the said order on the basis of first reference slip dated 28.05.01 without the knowledge and information of the controlling authority on his own accord on the plea that the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad directed him to go for periodical checkups on those dates and claimed medical reimbursement as shown in the said order. He had also taken TA advance on each occasion proceeding to the NIMS hospital, Hyderabad for periodical checkups as granted by the then Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices. It is also observed by the 3rd respondent that the claims are in addition to the amount of Rs. 85,434/- passed on 07.09.01 for the treatment. Out of the six claims the first 5 claims for an amount of Rs. 14,494/- were already passed and paid by the then Sr. Supdt. of Post offices and the only claim pending is for Rs. 3,677/- for the periodical checkup on 05.11.03. Considering all the facts and circumstances the 3rd respondent felt that the official is not entitled to any TA for his proceeding to the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad at his choice, ignoring the higher institution SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati nearby in the same district. But the official was granted TA advance on seven occasions since 03.06.01 for his to and fro journey for self and escort to the NIMS hospital Hyderabad as detailed and the TA bills were paid to the extent of Rs. 10,072/-. It was therefore mentioned by the 3rd respondent that as the official is not eligible for TA in the above circumstances as per rules he was directed on 01.04.04 to credit back the TA paid to him on these occasions, and the same was not yet credited by him and therefore he requested vide his letter dated 02.06.2004 the Postmaster General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool (2nd respondent) to clarify whether the medical reimbursement claim of the official for Rs. 3,677/- can be admitted without insisting the counter signature of the DM&HO on his medical claim for outside the District treatment and whether the TA paid to him in violation of Medical attendance rules need be recovered before disposal of the medical claim. In view of the clarification of respondent No. 2 in its letter dated 25.06.04 wherein it was clarified that the decision of respondent No. 3 t insist for counter signature of District Medical Officer on the medical claim and recover the TA paid is in order, the applicant was directed on 5.7.04 to credit the amount of Rs. 10,072/- towards TA paid to him in connection with his periodical checkups at Hyderabad at his choice and also to obtain counter signature of DM&HO on the medical claims. The appeal of the applicant, on the order dated 5.7.04 of the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2 on 23.10.2004, was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 28.03.2005 for waival of Sr.Supdt. of Post offices order to recover TA paid to him. Hence it is the case of the respondents that respondent No. 3 ordered the Postmaster, Chittoor HO on 30.3.2005 to collect Rs. 10,072/- towards irregularly paid TA in connection with medical check ups at NIMS Hospital Hyderabad from the applicant and credit it under unclassified receipts.
8. However, it is not in dispute that all the medical bills claimed by the applicant was cleared by the respondents. It is only the request of the applicant to waive the recovery of TA paid to him was rejected and the respondent No. 3 ordered respondent No. 4 to collect Rs. 10,072/- towards irregularly paid TA in connection with medical checkups at NIMS Hospital Hyderabad.
9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.3.2005, enclosed at page 9 of the OA, show that medical reimbursement bill for Rs. 84,534/- was passed on 7.9.01 as the then SSPOs permitted the applicant on 1.6.01 with one escort to go to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and that since the applicant did not take permission of the SSPOs to go to NIMS, Hyderabad on subsequent occasions i.e. on 20.07.01, 15.11.01, 1.3.01, 18.9.02, 28.4.02 and 5.11.03 (with TA paid Rs. 1168/-, 1047/-, 883/-, 1793/-, 1819/-, 1745/- and 1587/- totaling to Rs. 10,072/-) for periodical checkups as required under GID(11) below Rule 2 of CS (MA) Rules the applicant was directed to credit Rs. 10,072/- under UCR before taking payment of the above said four medical reimbursement claims.
10. In view of the above it is an admitted position that the applicant was referred by the competent authority to higher institution for further treatment and was advised to accompany with an escort and the then SSPO permitted the applicant to go to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad for his treatment and he was permitted to have one escort with him and make TA bills for himself and his escort. It is also evident that after he submitted TA advance the same was sanctioned by SSPO under the provisions of Rule 410 of the P&T Volume (Second edition). It is not disputed that all the medical bills including the bills for routine checkups after treatment was over, were cleared by the respondents which goes on to show that it was within the respondents knowledge that applicant has gone for medical checkups after treatment was over. In support of his contention that applicant was directed to go for further checkup he has enclosed supportive documents at page 19 of the OA and at the time of final hearing the applicant’s counsel has also produced some documents of NIMS Hospital wherein it was prescribed to review after six months/three months with attendant and accordingly the applicant went to NIMS to review and submitted his TA Bills which was sanctioned and passed by the competent authority. It is not understood that if it is the case of the respondents that applicant is not entitled for TA why he was permitted to claim for TA for himself and his escort and the bills made were sanctioned and paid to the applicant. The authority who permitted and paid the same should be conversant with the rule position and take due care at the time of giving permission to make the bills and passing the bills. When the earlier TA bills were sanctioned the applicant was never informed that he is otherwise not entitled for TA bill for himself and escort. Since the applicant was permitted to make TA bills for self and his escort and the same were sanctioned he was under no doubt of his entitlement to claim the TA bills for his subsequent visit to NIMS. I, therefore, do not find any justification to hold the applicant responsible and direct him to credit the amount paid without perusing the prescription. Had it been the case of the respondents that it was wrongly sanctioned and paid and he was duly informed about his entitlement but inspite of that he again claimed TA bills, the applicant could be held responsible. Since that is not so, I am, therefore, of the view that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the request of the applicant for waival of recovery of the TA advance sanctioned and paid to him. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the 3rd respondent insofar as it rejects the request of the applicant for waival of recovery of the TA advance sanctioned and paid. However, since the prescriptions were produced before the Tribunal at the time of hearing to show that he was advised to go for periodical review, justice would be met if the applicant is directed to produce the prescriptions before the respondents to establish that he has been duly advised for review from time to time and accordingly he has gone there for review and claimed his TA bills accordingly. The respondents shall, on perusal of the prescriptions, pass appropriate order. The applicant shall produce the prescriptions accordingly on the date fixed by the respondents. The respondents shall complete the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The copy of the prescriptions produced before the Tribunal is returned to the learned Counsel for the applicant.
11. OA is ordered accordingly with no order as to costs.