IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22668-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: August 2, 2011 Vinay Narula ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. (Mrs.) Urmil Gupta, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. .M. KUMAR, J. .M. KUMAR, J. .M. KUMAR, J. 1. The unsuccessful applicant-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging order dated 28.4.2010 (P-9) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting the prayer made by him for reimbursement of the balance amount of medical claim raised by him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner has been working as a Senior Tax Assistant in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1. On 28.2.2006, he slipped from the stairs of his house at night and suffered severe internal injuries including injury in the spinal cord. He was got admitted in a private nursing home, namely, Joshi Hospital, CWP No. 22668 CWP No. 22668 CWP No. 22668 CWP No. 22668-CAT of 2010 CAT of 2010 CAT of 2010 CAT of 2010 2 Jalandhar for treatment. The applicant-petitioner has claimed that Dr. Mukesh Joshi, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon in the Joshi Hospital, is also an Authorised Medical Attendant for the Central Government Employees in terms of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). The applicant- petitioner remained under his treatment w.e.f. 28.2.2006 to 22.3.2006 as an indoor patient. He was operated upon and a metallic plate was implanted in his body. 3. After his discharge from the said hospital, the applicant- petitioner submitted his medical bills amounting to `1,11,872/- for reimbursement. The respondent department, however, reimbursed only a sum of `50,952/- and the remaining amount of `60,920/- has been withheld. He then made several representations for release of the remaining amount and eventually filed OA No. 828/PB/2009 before the Tribunal. The respondents contested the claim made by him, inter alia, on the ground that the medical expenses incurred by an employee on his treatment in a private clinic/nursing home of Authorised Medical Attendant in an emergent situation could not be reimbursed in terms of Note 2 below para 1(i) of the procedure laid down in the Rules. However, considering the case of the applicant- petitioner sympathetically the competent authority in relaxation of the Rules has allowed reimbursement of expenditure incurred on hospital charges, operation charges for major operation, operation theatre charges, X-Ray charges, laboratory charges/test, medicines, implant and MRI charges, under Appendix-VIII of the Rules. It has also been pointed out by the respondents that Joshi Hospital has, in fact, been owned by the wife of Dr. Mukesh Joshi, therefore he had substantial interest. The Tribunal after considering the aforesaid factual position found no illegality in the action taken by the CWP No. 22668 CWP No. 22668 CWP No. 22668 CWP No. 22668-CAT of 2010 CAT of 2010 CAT of 2010 CAT of 2010 3 respondents and dismissed the original application, vide order dated 28.4.2010. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. It has come on record that only such expenses which have been incurred towards doctors’ visits, nurses’ charges, dressing and other charges have been denied to the applicant-petitioner whereas the respondent department by taking a lenient view and in relaxation of the Rules has already reimbursed a sum of `50,952/- to the applicant-petitioner. We do not find any merit in the instant petition warranting admission. Accordingly, this petition fail and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) August 2 August 2 August 2 August 2, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor