STATE OF H.P Vs. INDER MOHAN MARWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the order passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. (D) 491/99, dated 23.3.2001 has been challenged. The necessary facts for the adjudication of the writ petition are that the respondent was appointed as a Supervisor (wood work) on 29.10.1960 in the Department of H.P. Industries. He was sent on deputation to respondent No.3 - Corporation in the year 1974, where he joined his duties on 14.3.1975. The respondent was absorbed permanently in the respondent No -3 -Corporation as per order dated 23.12.1975 and retired from the Department of Industries vide office order dated 28.6.1979. The department of Industries granted all the pensionary and terminal benefits and fixed his pension w.e.f. 28.5.1979 vide P.P.O. No.12314/H.P. which was paid to him. The respondent served the respondent No.3 -Corporation till the date of superannuation, i.e. 30.11.1996 as Development Officer (Handloom). Respondent No.1 submitted medical re -imbursement bills to the Director of Industries, H.P. as well as to the Managing Director of respondent No.3 -Corporation since reimbursement was not made, he made various representations for the payment towards his medical bills, but they were rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the non payment of his medical bills, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of Original Application bearing No. (D) 491/99. The thrust of the argument before the learned Tribunal put forth by the respondent was that since he had retired from the Government service w.e.f 20.5.1979 and has been paid pensionary retrial benefits, the State should pay his medical bills. The main plea of the State before the learned Tribunal was that in view of the instructions dated 8.11.1994, the respondent was not entitled to get the reimbursement (sic -reimbursement) for his medical bills. After hearing the parties, the Original Application was allowed and the amount ordered to be paid to the petitioner.

(2.) We have heard the parties at length and are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is within the parameters of law and need not be disturbed. The main contention of the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State is that in view of the notification dated 8.11.1994, the respondent is not entitled to get the reimbursement of his medical bills. The learned counsel appearing on behalf respondent No.3 -Corporation has stated at bar that the Corporation has no scheme/rules/regulations for reimbursement of medical bills. It is evident from, the record that respondent No.1 has served the Department of Industries w.e.f. 29.1 -0.1960 till 27.5.1979. The respondent has been granted pensionary and retrial benefits by the Industries Department.

(3.) We are of the considered opinion that the respondents absorption in the Corporation does not obliterate his status as a government servant and he is entitled to get reimbursement of the medical bills from the petitioner -State. For all intents and purposes he is to be treated as a retired government servant in titled to all the monetary benefits available to him on the date of his retirement. The stand taken by the petitioner -State before the learned Tribunal is against the law and cannot be held to be constitutionally valid. The office memorandum dated 8.11.1994 cannot be invoked by the petitioner -State to deny the petitioner and similarly situated persons the reimbursement of medical bills. The respondent was retired from the government service on 27.5.1979 and the office memorandum dated 8.11.1994 cannot be applied retrospectively. The respondent and similarly situated government employees who have retired before the issuance of office memorandum dated 8.11.1994 constitute a separate and distinct class and have acquired vested right to get reimbursement of medical bills from the petitioner -State. The petitioner -State cannot deprive of the respondent and similarly situated employees the benefit of medical reimbursement bills merely on the basis of office memorandum since the rights of respondents are governed under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.