MAHENDRA PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a retired Addl. District and Sessions, Delhi by this petition seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing orders dated 13.5.2000 and 24.7.2000, rejecting his claim for medical reimbursement. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents to sanction and release his medical claim of Rs. 2,00,239/- (Rupees two lacs two hundred thirty nine only). Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses relates to the angioplasty with a stent being fixed at the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the EHIRC) during 19th to 23rd October,1999.

(2.) Petitioner had been compulsorily retired by Delhi High Court on 1.6.1993. Petitioner challenged the said order by way of a writ petition bearing No. 4354/93. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on 18.2.2000. As a result of the writ petition being allowed, it was held that the petitioner continued in service with all consequential benefits till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.8.1998.

(3.) Petitioner applied for becoming member of the Scheme providing medical facilities to the employees/ pensioners of Delhi Government, vide his letter dated 14.10.1999. Petitioner notified his basic scale of pay as 5,700/- per month at the time of retirement. He requested for issuance of the health card. The application was duly received by the respondent, Competent Authority. Respondents noted that the officer (petitioner) had not been drawing pension for the reasons not known and approval was sought for issuance of medical card. It appears that the application was not processed, since the petitioner had not been drawing pension, though the factum of retirement was on record, on account of endorsement made on 3.6.1993. Pension papers were being awaited for processing the application. Subsequently on 20.1.2000, the Executive Officer allowed the application and required the subscription amount of Rs. 600/- to be deposited. The petitioner's case is that after his compulsory retirement, on account of writ petition filed challenging his compulsory retirement in which he ultimately succeeded, he had in the interregnum not drawn pension.