Union of India vs Sureshbhai Laljibhai Modna

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to ''the Tribunal'') in Original Application No. 455 of 2012 with M.A. No. 307 of 2012. By the said order, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent and quashed the order of the petitioners rejecting the claim of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 71,926/- and directed the petitioners to pay the said amount with interest at the rate payable to P.F. deposits from 20.1.2011 till the date of payment.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is serving as a Postal Assistant under petitioner No. 3. His wife was suffering from heart ailments and she was advised to undergo surgery for valve replacement. The respondent obtained permission from the department to avail of medical treatment from Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad and his wife was operated at that hospital. The hospital used "25 mm Perimount mitral magna tissue valve" for the surgery and the total treatment charges including the cost of valve was Rs. 1,92,000/-. The respondent submitted bills and relevant documents for reimbursement. However, the petitioner No. 3 sanctioned only Rs. 1,20,074/- and withheld the cost of the valve of Rs. 71,926/-. Thereafter, the respondent made several representations. Thereafter, the petitioners by order dated 22.8.2012 rejected the claim of the respondent. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred O.A. No. 455 of 2012 with M.A. No. 307 of 2012.

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and held that the actual cost of valve used in the surgery of the wife of the respondent was Rs. 1,32,500/- and the same has to be reimbursed to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was entitled for an amount of Rs. 71,926/- and on the said amount, the interest was also liable to be paid to the respondent at the rate payable to PF deposits from 20.1.2011 till the date of payment. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in paragraphs 16 and 17 is extracted below:-

"16. On the other hand, the respondent seems to have relied on the information supplied by M/s. U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Centre, Ahmedabad which had been adopting a dilly-dallying attitude in furnishing the actual cost of the valve. When the applicant approached the aforesaid institute with an question under RTI Act, the institute sent a reply dated 29-8-2011 (see page 37 to 39 of the paper book) informing that no information/details are available on record regarding the fair and correct price of the valve as on 20-1-2011. Almost a same attitude was shown by the said Institute when this Tribunal has required them to produce the records. However, learned counsel for the respondents produced Annexure R-I along with his written notes of arguments stating that the cost of the valve is Rs. 60,574/-. In the circumstance, I am not inclined to rely on the information supplied by the M/s. U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Center, Ahmedabad regarding the actual cost of valve used in the surgery of the applicant''s wife. Since the respondent No. 3, in Annexure A-2 letter, has unambiguously relied on the Government of Gujarat''s resolution No. MAG 102000-4932-A dated 9-9-2005 for the cost of the valve, this Tribunal accept that the value of the valve is Rs. 1,32,500/- and the same has to be reimbursed to the applicant as per its cost shown in Annexure A-7. The point is answered in favour of the applicant.

In the result, OA succeeds. The order of the respondents rejecting the claim of the applicant to the tune of Rs. 71,926/- is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 71,926/- to the applicant with interest at the rate payable to P.F. deposits from 20-1-2011 till the date of payment. MA/307/2012 also is disposed of for the reasons stated in this order. No order as to costs."

We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and instead of denying medical reimbursement, the petitioners should have seen that the medical reimbursement be paid to the respondent at the earliest. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly awarded interest which is not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

We do not find any merits in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

As per the order of the Tribunal, the necessary payment shall be made by the petitioners to the respondent within a period of three months from today.