IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19635 of 2010 MAHENDRA PRASAD SINHA S/O LATE JAMWANT SAHAY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONER (RETIRED SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA IMPHAL (HOLDER OF CGHS CODE NO.10262. RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-CHIRTAGUPTA MARG, P.S.JAKKANPUR, DISTT- PATNA………………………………………………………...PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, HEALTH SERVICE(CGHS), GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, HEALTH SERVICE(CGHS), GOVT. OF INDIA, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CGHS, 54, SOUTH CHHAJJUBAGH, PATNA.800001……………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocate For union of India:- Mr. Sahvind Kr. Sharma, CGC ---------------- 02/ 03-Dec-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. Petitioner was admittedly having a card and membership of CGHS, Patna renewed only till June 2000. Thereafter he did not get the card renewed and availed treatment for various ailments in Delhi and Patna till December 2006. Then he has submitted medical expense bill of Rs.2,20,155/- and wants the CGHS to treat him to be a member and pay his medical expense. Since CGHS did not agree to pay the medical expense claimed, the petitioner moved learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna through O.A.No.279 of 2009 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 2nd September 2010. 2 From the discussions made in paragraphs-8 to 14 it is clear that the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of V.K.Jagadhari vs. Union of India (2006)1 ATJ 282 has been rightly distinguished and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. R.Vivekananda Swamy and in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Savitri Upadhaya which followed the judgment in the case of Confederation of Ex- Serviceman Association vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 217 have been relied upon. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that claim for reimbursement must be made only in terms of Rules of CGHS and not de hors the same. It is evident that under Rules the petitioner’s claim was not admissible. We find no good reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)