CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: January 8, 2009 PROF. R.K. SINGHAL ...PETITIONER VERSUS CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. KUNAL DAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR.A.D.S. JATTANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 30.3.2001, vide which the reimbursement of medical claim for a sum of Rs.78,958/- has been granted. The petitioner who was working as a Superintending Engineer in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh developed acute chest pain on 15.4.1999 and was admitted to the Emergency Ward of PGI, Chandigarh. He was discharged on the same day and was advised to undergo Coronary Angiography. The petitioner got himself admitted in Apollo Hospital on 18.4.1999, however, after being discharged was admitted to Escorts Hospital, New Delhi on 27.5.1999. The petitioner underwent Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery at the Escorts Hospital on 27.5.1999 and was discharged from the hospital on 2.6.1999. The petitioner raised a bill amounting to Rs.1,73,300/- which was the amount spent by him on his medical treatment. The petitioner was, however, reimbursed an amount of Rs.78,958/-. Being dis-satisfied with the reimbursement the petitioner filed O.A. No.845-CH of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002 -2- Chandigarh Bench which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.3.2001. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents had granted sanction to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 for taking treatment for his heart disease from Escorts Hospital, New Delhi and therefore, the respondents are bound to reimburse the entire expenses incurred by him. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement in Mrs. Surya Pandit, IAS (retired) vs. State of Punjab, reported as (1995-3) PLR 683, wherein it has been held that there can be no justification for limiting the reimbursement of expenses to the rates of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The arguments of the petitioner have been controverted by the counsel appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to Annexure R-2 which is a letter written by the Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh dated 7.2.2001, whereby ex-post facto sanction was accorded to the petitioner to undergo treatment at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, subject to the condition that he would be reimbursed the medical charges as per rate of Government Hospitals of PGI/AIIMS New Delhi under the provisions of Medical Attendance Rules and Instructions of the Government. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the petitioner being a Government employee is free to get himself treated at any of the recognized hospitals in the country, however, he would be reimbursed the medical expenses at AIIMS rates. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the present case although the petitioner has raised a bill of CWP No.8387-CAT of 2002 -3- Rs.1,73,300/-, but he would only be reimbursed at the AIIMS rates which has already been paid to him. Learned counsel further submits that the authority relied upon by the petitioner in Mrs. Surya Pandit's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as according to the Government Policy the medical reimbursement can only be given at the AIIMS rates. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Raghuvir Prasad Mittal Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported as 2008(3) SCT 362, wherein reimbursement was given to the petitioner at the AIIMS rates, although he petitioner was allowed to get himself treated from Bombay Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the facts narrated above shows that the petitioner has been given the medical reimbursement as per AIIMS rates. The petitioner has not been able to point out any deficiency in the reimbursement granted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to show any policy of the State Government whereby the expenses which an employee incurs in the hospital on his treatment, the same has to be reimbursed to him in total. Even if the petitioner would have got himself treated abroad still, he would be entitled to reimbursement at the AIIMS/PGI rates only. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order (Annexure P-10) and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE January 8, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE