MANHARLAL D. BAROT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a retired Telegraphs Master. He retired from service in the year 1996. He and his wife were enjoying the medical facilities from the P & T Dispensary at Lal Darwaja. On 12 -3 -2007, the applicant's wife suffered a critical heart ailment and she was advised to take immediate treatment at U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Centre, Civil Hospital Campus, Ahmedabad. While under treatment in that hospital, she was transferred to SAL Hospital as per the advise of the hospital wherein she was operated for by -pass surgery on 4 -4 -2007 and was discharged on 12 -4 -2007. He claimed medical reimbursement for the hospital expenses for Rs. 1,32,243/ - and due to his mistake he reduced the medical claim insurance he received. The claim for medical reimbursement was submitted to the respondent department on 27 -11 -2007. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 asked for certain documents which were submitted by the applicant. It was the duty and responsibility of the respondent No. 2 to see that the retired employees get the benefit of medical reimbursement; but inspite of repeated requests and follow up of letters, no favorable result was received from the officers of the respondents. Respondent No. 4 has returned the claim of the applicant stating that only xerox copy of the medical card was submitted and it was also pointed out that some other papers like visit certificates from BSNL Officer, emergency certificate from the hospital etc. were not submitted. It was farther informed vide Annexure A -3 communication that since the applicant is a DOT employee, medical claim submitted by him cannot be processed. Thereupon the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 225/2008 in which the Tribunal directed the respondent department to reconsider the case of the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant's submitted Annexure A -4 application to respondent No. 3. The aforesaid representation was further forwarded to Medical Officer in -charge Lal Darwaja by respondent No. 3 and the said matter was informed to the applicant vide Annexure A -6 communication. Finally, the entire file of the applicant was returned by the respondent No. 3 along with the Annexure A communication stating that the applicant is not entitled to medical reimbursement. The applicant is challenging the aforesaid act of the respondents and is praying for following reliefs: -

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 5 filed reply stating that no relief is sought for against respondent No. 1 in this OA. The applicant does not disclose the quantum of money for the treatment of his wife. As per the DOT Headquarter letter dated 31 -7 -2002, no claim of salary, arrears and allowances are to be entertained from BSNL by DOT Cell. The medical reimbursement claim is to be decided by the Competent Authority in the BSNL irrespective of the fact that the claim related to the pre or post 1 -10 -2000. By O.M. dated 20 -8 -2004, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (Department of Health) clarified that medical facilities to retired P & T employees was extended vide Government of India Ministry of Communications (P & T Board) letter dated 20 -1 -1977. However, there is no provision for reimbursement of medical charges incurred during outdoor treatment. As per the aforesaid letter only outdoor medical treatment as available in P & T dispensary will be provided to the retired employees and their family members. After 5th Pay Commission, a fixed amount of Rs. 1000 (sic Rs. 100/ -) per month is being given to the retired employees. The applicant was availing medical facilities from P & T Dispensary Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 contended that the applicant is not entitled to reimbursement of the amount claimed in this OA.

(3.) HEARD Ms. Vilas Purani, learned proxy Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Joy Mathew, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 and Ms. R.R. Patel, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. There was no appearance for respondent Nos. 2 and 4.