IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.835 of 2008 Date of decision : August 24, 2011 R.L. Kaith …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner was employed as Labour Officer by the Central Government. Lateron, he was promoted as Assistant Labour Commissioner. When working as Assistant Labour Commissioner, he went on deputation to Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB, for short), where he was absorbed as Officer of the said Organization, on 3rd July, 1979. He retired from service on 31st May, 1985. He having been absorbed in the BBMB, respondent No.2, herein, retired as its employee. On account of his previous service with the Central Government, the said Government granted him pension, for the service rendered by him under the said Government, on pro-rata basis. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. In June, 2005, the petitioner was hospitalized in Zonal Hospital Mandi, from where he was referred to Fortis Hospital at Mohali, on 29th June, 2005. He remained admitted there upto 14th July, 2005. During this period, he was operated upon, for heart ailment. He spent a sum of `1,99,000/- and odds on his treatment, which included cost of medicines and surgical operation. He submitted a claim to respondent No.2, from whose employment he retired, for reimbursement of his medical claim, after it was scaled down to `1,05,583/-, by an approved doctor of respondent No.2. 3. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected, vide Annexures P-14 and P-15, on the ground that he being not a pensioner of respondent No.2, but only a contributory to provident fund, during his service with the said respondent, was not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses, after retirement. 4. Petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid action of respondent No.2, filed the present writ petition, claiming that he, being a retired servant of respondent No.2, is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses, under Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940, as adopted by respondent No.2. 5. Respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that first, on account of the petitioner being not a …3… pensioner of respondent No.2, he is not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses, in view of the provision of Rule-4 of Chapter-3 of the aforesaid Rules, and secondly, even if he is held to be entitled to reimbursement, under Rule 4, then his entitlement for reimbursement is only for the medicines purchased, during treatment, as per provision of Rule 5 of Chapter-3. Also, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to full reimbursement of the sum of `1,99,000/- and odds, but only for a sum of `1,05,583/- and this amount can also be claimed by him only form the Central Government, whose pensioner he is. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as also the relevant Rules, a copy of which has been made available by the learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. 7. Rules 4 & 5 of Chapter 3 of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 are reproduced below for ready reference: 4. Extent of facilities to Pensioners: Facilities of free medical treatment (which will also include free supply of such medicines as are available/supplied, at the Hospital/ Dispensary etc. indoor and outdoor, including X-Ray, Laboratory and other such examinations, at the State Hospitals, Dispensaries etc. according to the status enjoyed by them at the time of retirement has been extended to: …4… (i) Punjab Govt. Pensioners. (ii) (a) Retired judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. (b)Retired officers belong to All India Services Who after retirement settle in Punjab/ Chandigarh and draw their pensions from Punjab Govt. treasuries. (See also clause iv ibid.) (PG letter Nos.15159-IHB-67/34246, dated 29-11-1967, 8635-5HBI-73-21636, dated 24-8-1973 & 135-5HBI-74/1415, dated 23-1-1974). (iii) (a) Retired Govt. employees who were entitled to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund. (b) Pensioners who retired from Punjab Govt. before the reorganization of the State but are now drawing pensions in Chandigarh. (c) Retired Haryana Govt. pensioners as well as those entitled to the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund drawing pensions from Punjab State treasuries. (PG letter No.14012-IHBI-70/ 30690, dated 30-10-1970) (iv) XXX XXX XXX 5. Reimbursement of cost of medicines : The following types of pensioners will be allowed also to obtain reimbursement of cost of such medicines not supplied by the Hospital/ Dispensary free of cost but purchased from the market for indoor treatment. 1. Punjab Govt. Pensioners who retired whether before or after 1-11-1966 and are residing in Punjab/Chandigarh and drawing pension from treasuries of Punjab and also their eligible family …5… members. Total expenditure in this respect will be borne by the Punjab Government. 2. Retired members of All India Services, and retired Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court who after retirement have settled in Punjab and draw their pension from Punjab Government treasuries & their eligible family members. 3. Punjab Govt. pensioners residing outside the State of Punjab who get treatment at any of the Government Hospital/Dispensary of Punjab. The condition to take treatment in the hospitals of Punjab has now been relaxed.” 8. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the construction placed upon the two Rules, i.e. Rules 4 & 5 of Chapter-3 of the aforesaid Rules, by respondent No.2, is not only incorrect, but also perverse. Rule 4(i) of Chapter-3, refers to Punjab Government pensioners, which, in the present context, means a pensioner of respondent No.2 and the petitioner is not a pensioner of respondent No.2, but clause iii(a) of Rule-4, makes it plainly clear that benefit of reimbursement of medical expenses is available even to those employees of respondent No.2, who had been entitled to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund, which the petitioner, admittedly, was. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner retired, the employees of respondent No.2 were not entitled to any pension. The employees of respondent …6… No.2 were entitled to the benefit of contribution to provident fund. It was only in the year 1990, much after the retirement of the petitioner, that pension scheme was introduced by respondent No.2 and its employees, retiring after the implementation of said scheme, started getting pension. Therefore, stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner, being not a pensioner of respondent No.2, is not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses, cannot be sustained. 9. Rule-5 of Chapter-3 of the aforesaid Rules does not restrict the claim for reimbursement of the money spent on purchase of medicines alone. It simply says that in addition to other expenses, the retirees will be entitled to reimbursement of money spent on purchase of medicines from market, if such medicines are not supplied by the hospital or dispensary for indoor treatment. 10. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to reimburse the claim of the petitioner, to the extent of `1,05,583.49p, to which amount it has been scaled down by a doctor of respondent No.2, as per details, appearing in Annexure P-16, filed with the rejoinder. The aforesaid amount of money shall be paid by respondent No.3, together with interest @ 8 per cent …7… (rate of interest is equivalent to the rate of interest payable on Provident Fund accumulations) from 18th April, 2006, a date one month after the date when the doctor of Fortis Hospital certified the claim, to the date of the payment of the amount and this direction be complied with on or before 31st October, 2011. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to respondents No.2 to 4. August 24, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J