WP/25945/2023 of THE UNION OF INDIA Vs THE REGISTRAR on 9 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.Dhandapani J.) This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari and call for records pertaining to the order dated 12.01.2023 in O.A.297 of 2022 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the deceased second respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013 as Senior Audit Officer and is also a beneficiary of Central Government Health Scheme [hereinafter referred to as CGHS] and he made a claim for medical reimbursement of a sum of Rs.2,11,000/-, out of which, a partial amount of Rs.65,540/- was disbursed and the balance claim was rejected on the ground that the second respondent has taken treatment in non-empanelled hospital under non-emergency condition and aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed O.A.297 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was allowed on 12.01.2023.

3. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that admittedly the deceased second respondent is a beneficiary of

CGHS under which he is entitled to claim full reimbursement upon satisfaction of CGHS Guidelines in Office Memorandum issued by the first petitioner dated 06.06.2018, as per which, the second respondent must satisfy that the treatment was undergone under emergency and the patient was admitted by others when the beneficiary was unconscious or severely incapacitated and was hospitalized for a prolonged period. In the present case, the said conditions were not satisfied by the second respondent, however, the Central Administrative Tribunal by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. UOI dated 13.04.2018, allowed the original application filed by the second respondent, which is not sustainable one. The learned Senior Panel Counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court made it very clear that is is applicable only to that particular case and it is not applicable to all the cases.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the deceased second respondent was admitted in the hospital from 18.01.2021 till 28.01.2021. After due investigation, a complex procedure involving laying open of anterior urethra plus uretheroscopy and visual internal urethrotomy was done on him and treated with antibiotics, anti hypertensives and other supportive measures. On 28.01.2021, he was discharged with clinical improvement. Thereafter, the second respondent made claim for medical reimbursement and the same was rejected by the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that already the deceased second respondent is a beneficiary of CGHS and he had a history of renal transplant and aortic valve replacement. His condition was so serious with extreme difficulty in evacuating urine etc., and hence, he was admitted in a private hospital under emergency. All the facts were demonstrated before the Central Administrative Tribunal and hence the Central Administrative Tribunal by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. UOI dated 13.04.2018, allowed the original application filed by the deceased second respondent.

5. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Perusal of records reveal that the deceased second respondent is a beneficiary of CGHS and he had a history of renal transplant and aortic valve replacement. With extreme difficulty in evacuating urine etc., the deceased second respondent was admitted in the hospital from 18.01.2021 till 28.01.2021. After due investigation, a complex procedure involving laying open of anterior urethra plus uretheroscopy and visual internal urethrotomy was done on him and treated with antibiotics, anti hypertensives and other supportive measures. On 28.01.2021, he was discharged with clinical improvement. The above facts clearly reveal that the second was admitted in a non-empanelled hospital under emergency. All the factual aspects were clearly demonstrated before the

Central Administrative Tribunal and hence the Central Administrative Tribunal by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. UOI dated 13.04.2018, allowed the original application filed by the deceased second respondent, which warrants no interference.

7. At this juncture, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 05.09.2023 in W.P.No.25945 of 2023 and WMP No.25369 of 2023, the petitioner department deposited the entire claim amount after deducting the amount already reimbursed, to the credit of this writ petition before the Registry of this Court.

8. This writ petition is dismissed. Registry is directed to disburse the entire amount deposited by the petitioner department to the third respondent/ wife of the deceased second respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. pri WP No. 25945 of 2023 And WMP No.25369 of 2023 09-10-2026