Union Of India And ORS v. Raj Kumar Shaw

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WP.CT/44/2023 The Union of India and another Vs.

Shri Raj Kumar Saw Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the petitioners Mr. Raj Kumar Saw ... respondent (in person) September 29, 2023 [SR] Suppl. Item No.2 The point which has already been settled in a catena of the decisions rendered by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and ultimately by the Supreme Court is sought to be raised frequently at the behest of the administration which simply augments the initiation of the litigations. There has been a constant dissatisfaction at the behest of the retired employees of the Union Territory relating to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by them for their treatment after they attained superannuation.

One of such retired employee namely, V. A. Abraham approached the tribunal being O.A. 22 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench raising an identical issue when administration denied reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him while undergone a surgery at the Madras Medical Mission Hospital, Chennai.

A plea was taken that such retired employee is not entitled to get a benefit under the CGH scheme nor entitle to reimbursement of medical expenses as such scheme has not been extended to the Union territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration.

Ultimately, the tribunal held that the said applicant is entitled to benefit of medical reimbursement after noticing that the similarly circumstanced persons have been extended such benefits and therefore said applicant cannot be discriminated.

The order passed by the tribunal was assailed before this Court in WPCT No. 213 of 2007. During the hearing of the said writ petition, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that in an identical situation the matter went to the Apex Court in case of Union of India and another vs. Smti. S. Neelabai and another in Civil Appeal No. 4691 of 2010 and the Apex Court dismissed the same on April 3, 2012 along with the other several Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India against the grant of benefit of medical reimbursement to the similarly situated central government employees.

After noticing the above facts, that the Apex Court also held that the retired employee cannot be denied the medical reimbursement on technical ground.

The respondents approached the tribunal when the petitioners, Union of India denied medical reimbursement firstly on the ground that the CGH scheme is

not applicable to the respondent as he does not possess the card issued in this regard nor he is entitled to a medical reimbursement which he was availing while in service under the CS(MA) Rules.

The tribunal, after taking note of the Division Bench judgment rendered in case of V.A. Abraham, allowed the tribunal application directing the reimbursement of the medical expenses submitted by the respondent within a specified time.

Though the counsel for the Union of India is very much critical on the observation recorded by the tribunal that the direction in this regard cannot be passed, the moment of CGHS facilities has not been extended to the petitioner nor the same is admissible under CS(MA) Rules but we do not find that the aforesaid stand can be sustained, in view of the fact that all such plea were taken in a plethora of cases initiated by the several retired employees of the administration and an uniform decision was taken to extend facility of medical reimbursement.

Right to life imbibe within itself a right to healthy life. It is a duty of the government or administrator to protect the health or vigor of the employee and also to provide medical facilities not only during the services but thereafter.

It is a fundamental human right to live the life in meaningful and purposeful manner with dignity and it is equally important to provide all means to make such life

healthy. The employee who was enjoying the benefit of the medical reimbursement during the service, cannot be expected to be deprived of such facilities after serving several years in the administration and contributed immensely to the society. The Apex Court in case of Shiv Kant Shah vs. Union of India (Writ Petition) (Civil No. 694 of 2015) decided on April 13, 2018 held that the right to medical claim cannot be denied merely on a technical grounds. The authorities are bound to ensure that the claimant has actually taken treatment and a decision has to be taken by showing the human approach. Even a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in several writ petitions (CWP No. 26270 of 2015) held that the action of the Union of India in not reimbursing the medical bills as the employees' are neither covered under the CGH scheme or CS(MA) Rules is illegal, arbitrary, capriciously, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Such being the proposition of law enunciated from the above noted decisions, we do not find any substance in the decision of the petitioner that the respondent is not entitled to a medical reimbursement as he has not been issued a card under the CGH scheme. The order of the tribunal cannot be impinged on the ground nor needs interference.

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

( Harish Tandon, J. ) ( Rai Chattopadhyay, J. )