IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12927-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: July 26, 2010 Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Maya Devi and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The Union of India and its officers have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging order dated 19.5.2010 (P-8), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1062/PB/2009. The Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the respondents in terms of its order dated 5.3.2010, passed in the case of Kuldip Singh Virk v. Union of India and others (O.A. No. 197/PB/2009), directing the petitioners to re- examine the medical bills of late Shri Sohan Lal and to grant medical reimbursement at the rates charged by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘PGIMER, CWP No. 12927-CAT of 2010 Chandigarh’, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Brief facts of the case are that late Shri Sohan Lal was working as Assistant Post Master and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. He suffered a heart attack and was admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh, where he had undergone Angiography By-pass Surgery and Prostrate Surgery. Certain bills for claiming medical reimbursement were submitted by late Shri Sohan Lal with the petitioners, which were rejected vide order dated 4.3.2008 (P-2), on the ground that the Civil Service (Medical Allowance) Rules, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) were not applicable to the retired Government employees. Subsequently, the other medical bills submitted by late Shri Sohan Lal were also rejected/returned on the same ground, vide orders dated 15.7.2008 and 21.7.2008 (P-3 & P-4). On 7.4.2009, late Shri Sohan Lal was again admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh, for treatment of his heart ailment. On 4.6.2009, he unfortunately expired. The legal heirs- respondents submitted medical bills for reimbursement which were also rejected vide order dated 29.7.2009 (P-5). The legal heirs of late Shri Sohan Lal then sent a legal notice dated 29.9.2009, which was replied on 6.11.2009, reiterating that the respondents are not entitled to claim reimbursement of medical expenses after retirement of late Shri Sohan Lal as per item below Note 2 of Rule 1(2) of the Rules. The respondents then filed O.A. No. 1062/PB/2009 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 19.5.2010, allowed the said OA in terms of its earlier order dated 5.3.2010 passed in a similar case of Kuldip Singh Virk (supra). 2 CWP No. 12927-CAT of 2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we find no ground to interfere with the order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the Tribunal, warranting admission of the instant petition. It is conceded position that the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the Tribunal in the case of Kuldip Singh Virk (supra), was subject matter of challenge before this Court in CWP No. 9213 of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) upheld the order of the Tribunal, vide order dated 19.5.2010 (P-10). The Division Bench found that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, 2008 (2) SCT 239. In that case also the stand of the Union of India and its officers was that the Rules were not applicable to retired Government employees and the pensioners, who were not residing in the areas covered by CGHS, were only entitled to medical allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. This Court has taken the view that the employee has to perforce opt for fixed medical allowance as the area where he was residing was not covered by CGHS. It is pertinent to mention here that the Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) in its order dated 5.3.2010, passed in O.A. No. 197/PB/2009. We find no ground to take a contrary view in the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is also dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 3 CWP No. 12927-CAT of 2010 (A.N. JINDAL) July 26, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4