UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 1075 of 2010 and 1455 of 2009. In both appeals, the controversy revolves around the reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the petitioner-respondents on their medical treatment. The appellant had denied them the benefits by taking the plea that they were entitled only to fixed medical allowance of Rs. 100/- per month for meeting day to day medical expenses as they have been living in an area not covered by the Central Government Health Schemes. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Darshan Singh Rai v. Union of India and others, 2008 3 SLR 489 and Teja Singh v. Union of India and others (C.W.P. No. 8306 of 2006 decided on 9.2.2007) holding that Rs. 100/- paid to the pensioners of the Central Government as a fixed medical allowance would not apply, in case an employee has to be hospitalized. However, in both cases, the employees were required to be hospitalized i.e. either in Fortis Hospital, Mohali or in Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana, and their medical expenditure has to be reimbursed.

(2.) Dr. Amarpreet Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellant states that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Darshan Singh Rai's case (supra) is under challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and an SLP is pending. According to the learned counsel, these appeals should await the disposal of the SLP.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that within these jurisdictions two Division Bench judgments of this Court has taken a particular view by holding that medical expenses were liable to be reimbursed and the same cannot be refused on the ground that the petitioner-respondents were entitled to fixed medical allowances of Rs. 100/- per month. No argument has been advanced in support of the appeals as to how the directions issued by the learned Single Judge based on the judgment of two Division Bench of this Court would suffer from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, we hold that the appeals are wholly without merit and the same are liable to be dismissed.