UNION OF INDIA Vs. ROOP KANWAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING regard to the circumstances, while allowing the application (IA No. 623/2013), this petition has been considered finally at this stage itself.

(2.) PUT in brief, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the employee late Shri C.R. Mehta (now represented by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4) retired in the year 1981 as an officer of the Income Tax Department and was settled at Jodhpur. On 04.01.1998, he was advised hospitalisation and coronary angiography. As no such facility was available at Jodhpur, he proceeded to Delhi and got his treatment at Escorts Hospital wherefor, he was charged at Rs. 1,77,300/-. The late employee, while submitting that he had spent another Rs. 12,700/- on medicines and travelling, made a claim for reimbursement of the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/-. It was, inter alia, the case of the applicant that there was no Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) at Jodhpur and hence, he had rightfully taken the treatment in the Escorts Hospital at Delhi. The claim for reimbursement was, however, declined by the department with the observations that Central Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944 ('the Rules of 1944') were not applicable to the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred Original Application ('OA') No.124/2004, which has been considered and allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT'), while rejecting the contention of the respondents about applicability of the Office Memorandum said to be operating against the claim of the applicant. The CAT has, inter alia, observed and directed in its order dated 08.03.2005 as under:-

(3.) DURING the course of submissions, however, it is an admitted position that the other petitions of similar nature, as filed by the department, have since been considered and dismissed by this Court; and further, that the matters of the similar nature reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court where, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in a batch of petitions for special leave to appeal, led by SLP (Civil) No. 10659/2005. It is also pointed out during the course of submissions that the same employee had filed yet another OA bearing number 35/2006 in relation to his other medical expenditure, which was allowed by the CAT on 28.04.2010. In the said matter too, the present petitioners preferred a writ petition, being CWP No. 06824/2010, which was considered and dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 06.05.2011. In the order dated 06.05.2011, this Court has, inter alia, observed as under:-