126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Union of India and another Darshan Singh Sohal and CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge is to the order learned Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Union of India has been directed to reimburse the medical claim of the original applicant within two months and has by the Union of India dated 30.10. 2. Learned counsel submits that the claim was not admissible as the respondent No.1 had not been registered in the nearest CGHS city. 3. We notice that the Tribunal has found that t retired from government service on 31.03.2013. The provisions of registration in another city could not be applicable at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Union of Indi judgment of the Hon’ble Ap Union of India, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19343 Date of Decision: Union of India and another Vs. Darshan Singh Sohal and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Piyush Khanna, Senior Panel Counsel *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The challenge is to the order dated 06.09.2024, learned Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Union of India has been directed to reimburse the medical claim of the original applicant within two months and has by the Union of India dated 30.10.2023. Learned counsel submits that the claim was not admissible as the respondent No.1 had not been registered in the nearest CGHS city. We notice that the Tribunal has found that t retired from government service on 31.03.2013. The provisions of registration in another city could not be applicable at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case Union of India vs. Mohanlal Gupta 2018 (1) SCT 686 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India, (2018) 5 Scale 551. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 19343-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 …Petitioners …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Union of India has been directed to reimburse the medical claim of the original applicant within two months and has also set aside the order passed Learned counsel submits that the claim was not admissible as the respondent No.1 had not been registered in the nearest CGHS city. We notice that the Tribunal has found that the applicant stood retired from government service on 31.03.2013. The provisions of registration in another city could not be applicable at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case a vs. Mohanlal Gupta 2018 (1) SCT 686 as well as the in the case of Shiva Kant Jha vs. passed by the learned Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Union of India has been directed to reimburse the medical claim of the also set aside the order passed Learned counsel submits that the claim was not admissible as he applicant stood retired from government service on 31.03.2013. The provisions of registration in another city could not be applicable at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case as well as the Shiva Kant Jha vs. RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.15 09:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-19343-2025 (O&M) [2] 4. In view thereto, we do not find any reason to differ from the order already passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Compliance shall now be made within two months henceforth. 5. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 14.07.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.15 09:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.