Shesh Nath Mishra vs P.K. Purwar, Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi 110001 & Others

Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)

We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.

Shri Amal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

The instant contempt petition alleges willful disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA NO. 1327/2018. While deciding the aforesaid

OA., theTribunal has passed the following directions:-

“17 In view of the abovementioned facts of the case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the O.A. is allowed. Impugned

order dated 6.8.2018 (Annexure â€" A1) is quashed. Considering the fact that the applicant had informed the competent authority about the

hospitalization of his wife in a non-empanelled Hospital and the respondents did not object to his request, the respondents are directed to

treat this case as a case of ex-post facto approval and settle it in accordance with para 2.2.2 of the Medical Policy within 4 months of the

receipt of a certified copy of the order restricting the items of expenditure and the rates to that of items/rates as applicable to recognized

hospital in 2017. Any revision of rates subsequent to 2017 will not be applicable to this case. No order as to costsâ€​.

A bare reading of the above direction makes it clear that while allowing the OA of the applicant and directing the respondents to sanction and

release the medical reimbursement to him, the Tribunal had directed that the same shall be restricted to the rates admissible under the Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while some payment has been made to the petitioner, the same is grossly inadequate and not in

accordance with the actual expenditure incurred by the petitioner. He further mentions that several items have been omitted and the rate applied is

also not in accordance with what is admissible under the Rules.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, draws attention to the comprehensive affidavit of compliance he has filed and the

document he has annexed thereto which according to him makes it clear that the respondents have considered the medical claim of the petitioner and

made him payment in accordance with the rates which have been approved in the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS).

We have perused the documents on record and we find that vide an order dated 3.11.2020, the respondents have considered the claim submitted by

the petitioner as an indoor patient and have sanctioned the same in accordance with the CGHS rates. The petitioner may be not satisfied with the

payment made to him but we have to adjudicate upon the matter strictly in terms of the direction issued. We do not find any infirmity in the order

passed by the respondents by restricting the claim of the petitioner to the CGHS rates which are admissible in accordance with the rules. In our view

there is no willful disobedience made out and hence, the instant contempt petition is closed and notices discharged.