IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16862 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.06.2011 Didar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Phones, Chandigarh from where he retired on 30.04.1994. The petitioner is a chronic patient of diabeties and is suffering from heart trouble. He approached the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh and thereafter was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and then to AIIMS, New Delhi. The petitioner was then referred to Batra Hospital and Research Centre, New Delhi as emergency where he was operated upon for coronary bye pass surgery conducted on him on 31.12.1999. The petitioner spent ` 1,62,650/-. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for reimbursement. He had also taken a follow up action. When the claim of the petitioner was not allowed, he approached Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on 10.05.2002 seeking direction to reimburse the medical expenses incurred on Civil Writ Petition No. 16862 of 2010 -2- him. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh relying upon the judgment disposed of the Original Application filed by the petitioner. The permission was granted to the petitioner to challenge the vires of the rule. The Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh disposed of the reference on 17.03.2003 and has held that Medical Attendance Rules are not ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. Direction was issued to the Central Government to draw a scheme keeping in view the resources and availability of medical facilities for reimbursement of the claims particularly for indoor treatment of the retired government officials. The petition filed by the similar situated persons is disposed of in view of the said direction on 04.04.2003. It appears that subsequently some contempt petition was also filed. The stand was taken that it is not feasible to extend Central Service Medical Attendance Rules to the pensioners on the ground that the Department of Expenditure has taken a decision to the effect that in view of the huge financial implications, it is not feasible to accept the recommendations. The petitioner has filed a writ petition to seek reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred on him. The petitioner being an employee, to whom the jurisdiction to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal would be available, must first invoke that jurisdiction. The petitioner had earlier approached Central Administrative Tribunal. Earlier order is no good reason to approach this Court through writ or to circumvent the Central Administrative Tribunal. No case for interference in the Civil Writ Petition No. 16862 of 2010 -3- writ jurisdiction, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so advised. June 01, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE