Monday, October 10, 2011

OA NO.131/2010 --oral --on 13-04-2011





Mrs. Poornima Kumaraswamy,
W/o H.K.Kumaraswamy,
Aged 54 years, retired,
Post Graduate Teacher,
Kendriya Vidyalaya, K.G.F.,
Residing at No.753/55, 13th Main,
3rd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore – 560 010. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla)

1. Union of India,
By Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Department of Health,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Director General of Health Services,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

3. Additional Director,
Central Government Health Scheme,
Kendriya Sadan,
Bangalore – 560 034.

4. Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya,
BEML Nagar,
Kolar Gold Fields – 4563 115. ...Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)


Counsel on either sides are present. The learned Counsel for applicant has taken us through Annexure A1, A3 and A6 as also through the citations viz. SLJ 2005(2) page 145 and also the citation wherein it is mentioned at page-7 as far as health services are concerned:
“7. The above observation of the Supreme Court clearly suggests that the Govt. is under an obligation to provide its every citizen all necessary facilities to enjoy the best of health. When the Govt. is not in position to provide necessary hospital facilities, for securing the best medical treatment available it is under obligation to remiburse the treatment taken in other hospitals. For this purpose, no discrimination can be made between serving Govt. official and a retired Govt. official, both are citizen of India and both are entitled to same treatement. When the serving employees are entitled to reimbursement of their medical claim, the retired Govt. employee cannot be discriminated in that behalf. The extension of the medical reimbursement facility to pensioners of the Govt. was even recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission and as observed above accepted by the Govt. in principle by issuing the O.M. Dated 5.6.98. Unfortunately the Govt. has thereafter not taken necessary steps to amend the CS(MA) Rules but then this cannot be treated as a cause to deprive the legitimate claim of medical reimbursement of the pensioners. We note that in the case of Ram Dev Singh and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2003(2) ATJ CAT 19 the Full Bench of the Tribunal Chandigarh had while considering the ambit of the CS (MA) Rules vis-a-vis the applicability to a retired Govt. employee has directed the Central Govt., to frame a scheme within a period of six months keeping in view s resources and availability of medical facilities for reibusement of the claims particularly for indoor treatment of the retired Govt. officials. It is also directed that while doing so care must be taken against the retired Govt. servants, who have already taken indoor treatment and have since not been reimbursed. We find that though these directions are issued by the Full Bench as far back fas on 17.3.2003, nothing appears to have been done by the Central Govt. in this behalf. We also note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Narendra Pal Singh v. Union of India and Others, 1999 DLT 358 had permitted the reibusement of the medical expenses of a retired Govt. employee holding that the concerned person had the right to take steps in self-preservation.

2. The learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned order at Annexure A3 as well as Annexure A6 are bad in law because they discriminate against applicant in two ways, (a) discrimination of retired officers of KVS vis-a-vis serving officers. (b) While some retired employees of KVS in particular cities are allowed benefit of CGHS facilities, the retired officers of some other cities are denied the same benefit. Such a discrimination is also violative of Rule 14 of Constitution of India.

3. It is further pointed out that while the impugned order at Annexure A3 refers only to 4 cities viz., Mumbai, Hyderabad, Chennai and Calcutta regarding the CGHS facilities to retired employees of KVS. It clarifies that while serving KVS employees of these 4 cities will continue to avail the CGHS facilities as at present, it further clarified that the retired employees of the KVS are not eligible for these facilities. Thus these clarifications covers only 4 cities and does not cover Bangalore. Despite this, Annexure A6 refers to these existing orders at Annexure A1 and A3 and denies the CGHS facility to retired KVS employees of Bangalore, although there is no order particularly for Bangalore city.

4. The learned Counsel for respondents graciously agreed that in view of the citation quoted by the learned Counsel for applicant and from the legal position as it obtains from the above quoted citation, the claim in OA cannot be disputed. The learned Counsel for Respondent-4 i.e., KVS also maintains the same stand.

5. In view of this, the OA is allowed. No orders as to costs. The Respondents-2&3 are directed that the necessary health facilities should be extended to the applicant and to issue necessary instructions which in effect will extend the benefit of CGHS to the applicant as prayed for in representation dated 18.2.2005. The respondents-2&3 will also issue a suitable general clarification confirming availability of CGHS facilities to retired employees of KVS in Bangalore.


No comments:

Post a Comment