J.R. DHINGRA V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

CWP/19783/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around J.R. Dhingra, a retired Tax Assistant from the Income Tax Department, who sought reimbursement for medical expenses incurred during his treatment for coronary issues. Despite not being registered under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), Dhingra argued that his entitlement to medical reimbursement should not be contingent upon such registration. The respondents, including the Union of India, contended that the applicable rules for medical reimbursement to retirees were not met, as Dhingra had not registered with any CGHS dispensary. The court referenced a similar case from the Delhi High Court, which supported the petitioner's stance that retirees are entitled to medical reimbursements irrespective of their registration status with CGHS.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724265 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Menika Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597
• Laws Referred To: Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules, Central Government Health Scheme/Dispensaries (CGHS)
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J K GURNA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVINDRA JAIN
• Keywords: Medical expenses; Medical Reimbursement; Pensioners; Voluntary retirement; Central Government Health Scheme
• Section: 21

Judgement Text

"Civil Writ Petition No.19783 of 2010 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 08, 2011 J.R.Dhingra ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ravindra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.J.K.Gurna, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was working as a Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department at Panipat. Pursuant to the VRS Scheme, the petitioner opted and was retired from service on 30.4.1985. On 1.5.1985, the PPO was issued to him. During the month of December, 2007, he felt uneasiness because of congestion in the chest, for which he approached a doctor at Yamuna Nagar. After some stability, he was referred to Fortis Hospital, Mohali for a specialized treatment where the petitioner was operated on 27.12.2007 for Coronary Angiography. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 29.12.2007. He immediately informed his department about his ailment on 29.1.2008 and sent Civil Writ Petition No.19783 of 2010 : 2 : the medical bills and other relevant documents seeking medical reimbursement to the tune of `2,77,406/-. The bills were sent to the Commissioner Income Tax at Karnal for approval, but he returned the same to mention the particular heads under which the medical claim was to be paid. The bills were re-submitted, but still a clarification was sought regarding the head/rule under which the claim could be made. The respondents also sought clarification from Zonal Accounts Officer, Rohtak regarding payment of medical bill to a retiree. The matter was also referred to the Director General Health Services, who sought certain clarifications in regard to the reimbursement of medical bills to the retired employees. The Director General of Health Services informed that the Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules are not applicable in respect of retired employees. Plea is that the Central Government employees and their families are eligible to avail medical facilities under Central Government Health Scheme/Dispensaries (`CGHS' for short). The Director General Health Services sent back the original file of the petitioner with the remarks to approach the CGHS Department. The respondents thereafter sent the original file of the petitioner back, which, according to the petitioner, would tantamount to refusal of the medical claim. The petitioner accordingly has approached this court to seek reimbursement of his medical expenses incurred by him on his treatment. Reply has been filed. It is stated that the petitioner has not cited any rule under which he is entitled to relief claimed in the writ petition. On merits, it is stated that the petitioner himself got Civil Writ Petition No.19783 of 2010 : 3 : admitted in Fortis Hospital at Mohali. As per the reply, the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement from Central Government service and is not entitled to the reimbursement of the medical bill. The answering respondent has asked the petitioner to quote the rules, but he has not come out with any response. It is stated that the Central Service (Medical Attendant) Rules are not applicable to the retired Government officials, but under the Central Government Health Scheme, pensioners of the Central Government and their families are eligible to avail medical facilities. To become entitled to such facilities, the petitioner had an option to get his name registered with any of the dispensaries in the CGHS covered cities. As per these rules, the pensioners can get their medical reimbursement in normal course from the concerned Dy.Director of CGHS, provided the treatment is taken from a recognised hospital with prior permission of Dy. Director concerned. It is stated that the petitioner has not registered himself with any dispensary and thus is not covered by the scheme. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner would concede that the petitioner has not registered with any CGHS Scheme. However, the counsel submits that this reason would not be enough to deny medical claim. In support, he would rely upon a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi, copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-11. This was also a case where the medical reimbursement claim of the employee was declined on somewhat similar grounds. The High Court of Delhi made some very pertinent observations in regard to the right of the retired employees Civil Writ Petition No.19783 of 2010 : 4 : to receive medical reimbursement and also the attitude of the Government in this regard. It has been observed as under:- “It is quite shocking that despite various pronouncements of this court and of the Apex Court the respondents in utter defiance of the law laid down have taken taken a position that the pensioner is not entitled to the grant of medical reimbursement since he did not opt to become a member of the said health scheme after his retirement or before the said surgery undergone by him. It is a settled legal position that the government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights on the pretext that he has not opted to become a member of the scheme or had paid the requisite subscription after having undergone the operation or any other medical treatment. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the State has a constitutional obligation to bear the medical expenses of Government employees while in service and also after they are retired. Clearly in the present case by taking a very inhuman approach, these officials have denied the grant of medical reimbursement to the petitioner forcing him to approach this court. The respondents did not bother even after the judgment of this Court was brought to their notice and copy of the same was placed by the petitioner along with the present petition.” Civil Writ Petition No.19783 of 2010 : 5 : Thus, the Hon'ble court has invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India relating to right to life to lay down the obligation on the part of the State to reimburse medical expenses incurred by retirees. Article 21 says “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Right to life enshrined in this Article has been held to mean something more than survival or animal existence. This right would include right to live with human dignity, a right to minimum subsistence allowance during suspension. This right would include all those aspects of life, which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living (See Menika Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597). An aspect which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of right to life. Right to livelihood would also be a facet of right to life. Even right to good health has been held to be inclusive of right to life. That being the wide scope and ambit of this Article, right of the petitioner to seek reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him to ensure his right to health would fall within the ambit of right to life. The responsibility of the Government towards pensioners can not be left at the whims of the officials. The Government can not be permitted to escape responsibility to reimburse pensioners for medical expenses incurred on the support of some technicalities. If the objection is that the petitioner had taken treatment from unauthorized hospital, then the claim in such like cases has been and can be restricted to the entitlement of the person concerned as per the Government Hospital rates. Civil Writ Petition No.19783 of 2010 : 6 : The writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is so ordered. The medical reimbursement be paid to the petitioner as per his entitlement under the CGHS Scheme. Whatever the amount the petitioner is entitled to under the said scheme be released to him. July 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE "