BANARSI LAL V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

CWP/98/2015

AI Insights

The case revolves around the denial of a medical reimbursement claim to Banarsi Lal, a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of the CRPF, who had incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs.3,25,000 after a heart attack. The reimbursement was denied on the grounds that it was only admissible to employees currently in service, as per a communication dated 27.9.2014. The petitioner contested this decision, citing precedents where retired government employees were entitled to similar reimbursements despite receiving a fixed medical allowance. The court examined various judgments that supported the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursements and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 743211 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Darshan Singh Rai v. Union of India and others, Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, Union of India and others v. Mohan Lal Gupta and another, Braham Prakash v. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Darshan Singh Rai v. Union of India and others, 2008 (2) SCT 242, Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, 2008 (2) SCT 239, Union of India and others v. Mohan Lal Gupta and another, CWP No. 26270 of 2015, Braham Prakash v. Union of India and others, CWP No. 10110 of 2016
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JAGDEEP JASWAL
• Keywords: Medical Reimbursement; Retired government employee; Fixed medical allowance; Indoor treatment

Judgement Text

"CWP No. 98 of 2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 ***** CWP No. 98 of 2015 Date of Decision: 16.5.2019 Banarsi Lal ..........Petitioner v. The Union of India and others ..........Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present:- Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent-UOI --- G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) : The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 27.9.2014 (Annexure P-2), whereby medical reimbursement claim of Rs.3,25,000/-was returned, on the ground that he has retired from service w.e.f. 1.6.2013. As per the said communication, the medical reimbursement was admissible to the employees in service only. The claim, thus, is for the payment of medical reimbursement of the said amount alongwith interest for the delay. It is not disputed that the petitioner was serving as an ASI with 151 Battalion, CRPF and having retired on 31.5.2013 and suffered a heart attack on 4.7.2014 and was admitted to Chawla Heart Care Centre, Jalandhar, where he spent the said amount for his medical expenses. It is not disputed that the issue has come up time and again before this Court and the Division Benches have been repeatedly held that retired government employee is also entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses and merely, on account of fixed medical allowance being Ashwani Kumar 2019.05.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 98 of 2015 -2- paid, the claim as such cannot be denied for indoor treatment. Reference can be made upon the judgments of Darshan Singh Rai v. Union of India and others, 2008 (2) SCT 242' and 'Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, 2008 (2) SCT 239' and on judgment in CWP No. 26270 of 2015 titled as 'Union of India and others v. Mohan Lal Gupta and another', which has further placed reliance on Mohinder Singh's case (supra) and on CWP No. 10110 of 2016 titled as Braham Prakash v. Union of India and others decided on 9.4.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under : “In similar circumstances, another Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 2372 of 2011 'Assistant Commissioner Income Tax vs. J. R. Dhingra and others' while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in W.P. (C) 889 of 2007 'Kishan Chand vs. Govt. of NCT and others' dated 12.3.2010 dismissed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellants were directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred for the treatment at Fortis Hospital, Mohali.” In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to process the case for medical reimbursement for making the payment within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the amount is not paid within the prescribed period, the respondents shall pay interest from the date the amount was claimed @8% per annum. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 16.5.2019 Ashwani Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2019.05.24 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "