HARI LAL SAHANI Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in this O.A. retired from the post of Divisional Engineer in the office of Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Samastipur on 31.07.2007. The BSNL promulgated a medical reimbursement scheme in 2003 named as BSNL Employees Medical Reimbursement Scheme, 2003 (in short BSNL MRS). All serving or retired employees of BSNL are eligible for reimbursement of medical expenses in terms of provisions of the scheme. The employees opting for the scheme can avail Domiciliary treatment either from P & T Dispensaries or from Registered Medical Practitioners (RMPs) depending on their option to be exercised while registering under the scheme. The Outdoor/Domiciliary treatment option from RMPs has two alternatives, namely, reimbursement against vouchers or reimbursement without vouchers. The applicant had opted for reimbursement without vouchers for Outdoor/Domiciliary treatment from RMPs. Option exercised is not permissible to be changed during the financial year. For treatment in hospitals, reimbursement of expenses at approved rates at hospitals recognised by the management from time to time is permissible. In emergency cases, reimbursement for treatment in non -recognized hospitals can also be allowed with the approval of the CGM in case of field offices and of Director of BSNL Board for corporate office employees. The amount is, however, restricted to rates applicable for a particular recognized hospital notified by the CGM/BSNL C.O. These facts have not been disputed by the applicant.

(2.) WRITTEN statement has been filed by the respondents. No rejoinder thereto has been filed by the applicant.

(3.) AT the outset I would like to observe that clearly the two issues raised in the O.A. are neither connected with each other nor consequential to one another. The cause of action for both the issues is different. Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 stipulates, "An application shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more reliefs provided that they are consequential to one another." Hence, the O.A. suffers from the vice of plural remedies in a single application which is not permissible under rules. I, however, refrain from dismissing the O.A. on this count and deal with only the main issue raised in the O.A. i.e. the medical reimbursement claims on the applicant. So far as the other issue is concerned, the applicant may take recourse to appropriate course of action as per law/rules.