2025:KER:13801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946 OP (CAT) NO. 58 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2018 IN OA NO.1084 OF 2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695033. 3 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES KOLLAM POSTAL DIVISION, KOLLAM-691001. SRI T C KRISHNA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA IN CHARGE RESPONDENT/APPLICANTS: MARIYAMMA C.KOSHY W/O.(LATE) E.GEEVARGHESE, AGED 72 YEARS, KOVOOR VEEDU, PALLIMUKKU, VADAKKEVILA P O, KOLLAM-691010. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) NO.58 OF 2020 -2- 2025:KER:13801 JUDGMENT K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J. This O.P.(CAT) is preferred by the Union of India and its Officers impugning the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1084/2017 dated 12.10.2018, whereby the following claim of the respondent/applicant for reimbursement was disposed of. "(i) To quash Annexure Al and Annexure A2 (ii) To direct the respondents to sanction and disburse the reimbursement of the Medical Expenses sought for in Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6. (iii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and (iv) Grant the cost of this Original Application." 2. The facts in a narrow compass are as follows: The husband of the respondent/applicant, E.Geevarghese, is retired as Sub Postmaster from the Postal Department on 29.02.1996 on attaining superannuation, was drawing Rs.20,281/- as pension with Fixed Medical Allowances (FMA) of Rs.100/-. 3. The Central Government Pensioners residing within the area of CGHS are entitled to reimburse the medical expenses in full OP(CAT) NO.58 OF 2020 -3- 2025:KER:13801 but, those who are residing outside the CGHS area are granted FMA of Rs.300/- per month. On the basis of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the amount was revised from Rs.100/- to Rs.300/- vide Annexure-A3 OM dated 26.05.2010. 4. Late Geevarghese, the husband of the respondent, underwent major surgery at Travancore Medical College in two spells. In the 1st spell, he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.31,992/- and in the 2nd spell, an amount of Rs.56,272/-. He submitted Annexures- A5 and A6 applications before the petitioners claiming reimbursement of the medical bills. The case of the applicant was that the treatment was effected due to emergency, to save the life of her husband. The applicant had submitted Emergency Certificate (Annexures-A7 and A8) before the Tribunal. 5. The stand of the petitioners before the Tribunal and before us is that, retired employees where CGHS facilities are not available, cannot avail the medical reimbursement instead, they are entitled to Fixed Medical Allowances of Rs.500/- per month. The Tribunal, noticing the rival contention of the counsel for the parties, disposed the OA with a direction to the petitioners to consider the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the husband of the applicant. OP(CAT) NO.58 OF 2020 -4- 2025:KER:13801 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/applicant supported the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, no interference is warranted in this case. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal and unsustainable. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 9. Adv.T.C.Krishna, Deputy Solicitor General of India-in- Charge submitted that, as per Clause (iv) of note 2 to Rule 1 of the Civil Service (Medical Attendance) Rules 1944, there is no provision of law to entertain the claims of retired Government officials. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to note that the husband of the respondent has not opted for CGHS and he has been drawing Family Medical Allowance ever since his retirement. The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties disposed of the application in the following manner. “8. The short question put forward by this Original Application is that whether the retired employees who are residing in non-CGHS areas are entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses or not? OP(CAT) NO.58 OF 2020 -5- 2025:KER:13801 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the O.A 24/2015 decided by this Tribunal in 2017 which is identical in situation where a retired person superannuated while working as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Kollam. He has claimed the medical expenses which was rejected vide Annexure A-1 order on the ground that as he is a retired employee his claim is not covered under CS(MA) Rules, 1944. This Tribunal quashed and set aside Annexure A-1 and directed the respondents to re- consider the claim of the applicant in the light of the observations made in order dated 18.7.2013 in O.A No.64/2013 of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ahmadabad and the judgment dated 28.12.2015 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.4621/2011 and consider reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the applicant as per bills. Paragraph 14 of O.A 64/2013 reads as follows: "14. If the serving government officials and the retired government officials are treated differently in the matter of protecting their health, keeping a wide hiatus between the two categories in the context of granting medical facilities, the same would be violative of fundamental right of equality guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is worth reminding that when policies relating to retired government servants and pensioners are formulated, they should be in consonance with the directive principles of State policy envisaged in Articles 41 and 47 in Part IV of the Constitution of India. Medical assistance and facilitating emergency treatments to the old retired government servants will be a step forward in mitigating their "ündeserved want" arising out of their health situation in the post-retirement life. This is a situation contemplated in Article 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, this matter requires a benevolent approach from the Central and State Governments." 10. In a nutshell, Ahmedabad Bench has decided the matter clearly on the ground of discrimination between serving government official viz-a-viz retired government official. By taking shelter of this judgment, this Tribunal is OP(CAT) NO.58 OF 2020 -6- 2025:KER:13801 of the view that the present Original Application has merit on its side and this Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that they may consider reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the applicant herein in terms of the Ahmedabad Bench judgment relied by the Ernakulam Bench in O.A 24/2015. This order shall be complied within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 10. The reasoning of the Tribunal is that, there cannot be any discrimination between the serving Government officials viz-a-viz referred Government officials in the matter of protecting their health. We are in agreement with the aforesaid reasoning. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel across the Bar and on perusal of the paper book, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. No good ground for interference is made out. OP(CAT) No.58/2020 fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE Sbna/ OP(CAT) NO.58 OF 2020 -7- 2025:KER:13801 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 58/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION 84 OF 2017 WITH ANNEXURES (PAGES 11-49) ANNEXURE P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E19/MR/GNL DATED 09.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E19/MR/GNL DATED 15.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.4/25/2008-P AND PW (D) DATED 26.05.2010. ANNEXURE P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF G.I. MIN OF HEALTH & F.W OM NO.S-14025/4/96-MS DATED 05.06.1998 ANNEXURE P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CLAIMING REFUND OF MEDICAL EXPENSES DATED 02.01.2017 ALONG WITH THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 21.10.2016. ANNEXURE P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CLAIMING REFUND OF MEDICAL EXPENSES DATED 04.05.2017 ALONG WITH THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 14.02.2017. ANNEXURE P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY CERTIFICATE DATED 02.01.2017 WITH RESPECT TO THE TREATMENT ADMINISTERED ON THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE MEDICAL COLLEGE. ANNEXURE P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY CERTIFICATE DATED 02.01.2017 WITH RESPECT TO THE TREATMENT ADMINISTERED ON THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE MEDICAL COLLEGE. ANNEXURE P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 64/2013 DATED 18.07.2013 AVAILED FROM SWAMY'S NEWS. ANNEXURE P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE LR. NO.21-13/2014-MEDICAL DATED --/10/2014 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. OP(CAT) NO.58 OF 2020 -8- 2025:KER:13801 ANNEXURE P1(A11) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2017 IN OA 24/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT. ANNEXURE P2(R1) TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 1(2)AN NOTE BELOW THE SAID RULE OF THE CCS (MEDIAL ATTENDANCE) RULES, 1944. ANNEXURE P2(R2) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.45/57/97-P AND PW(C) DATED 30.12.1998. ANNEXURE P2(R3) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.S.14025/4/96-MS DATED 20.08.2004. ANNEXURE P2(R4) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2006 IN WP(C) 14055 OF 2006(5) ANNEXURE P2(R5) TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION VIDE OM NO.S 14025/23/2013-MS-EHSS DATED 29.09.2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/1084/2017 DATED 12.10.2018 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.