CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2020) 03 CAT CK 0061

R. P. Bathla vs Union Of India And Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 13 March 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 44 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 425 words
1.

The applicant Mr. R. P. Bathla retired on 31.03.2011 as TGT (Science). He was posted at Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Tagore Garden, New Delhi under respondent no. 5. He was issued CGHS card valid from 26.12.2018 to 31.12.2019. Thereafter, though he has deposited Rs.7800/- towards renewal of the card, the said card has not been renewed. The applicant has stated that he is a cancer patient and is undergoing the chemotherapy for which he requires medical treatment and reimbursement of the same through CGHS.

2.

Respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e., Director General, CGHS and Additional Director (HQ) CGHS have stated in their counter that as per O.M. dated 29.09.2015, pensioners card will be issued to those pensioners who have been recommended by the KVS on cost to cost basis, in advance, on yearly basis, at the rates determined by Department of Health and Family Welfare in consultation with the Chief Advisor (Cost), Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. They have further stated that CGHS subscription in respect of the applicant has not been received from the KVS till now.

3.

The respondents 4 and 5 have stated that they have yet not forwarded the matter of the applicant because they are linking it with all employees of KVS who have not got CGHS card in service. They have stated in their counter that the matter is under consultation between KVS, HRD Ministry and the Ministry of Health. Since it is a policy decision pertaining to a large number of employees, it has also been desired that financial burden should be worked out and approval of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance is taken.

4.

It is of-course desirable that an early decision should be taken but since the matter pertains to a large number of employees, large financial implications and a policy matter, therefore it will naturally take time.

5.

The instant case is one where it is admitted that the applicant is a cancer sufferer and is undergoing huge expenditure on account of his treatment. CGHS card has been issued to him which could not have been done without the recommendation of the KVS. Therefore on account of any changed policy of KVS for non renewal of the card, the applicant need not be made to suffer. In the meantime, respondents no. 4 & 5 who are employers of the applicant should ensure that a suitable arrangement is made so that the applicant is not out of pocket for his chemotherapy and cancer treatment.

6.

The O.A is disposed of accordingly. No costs.