P SATISH vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 27 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD (TELANGANA) NO. 5-10-193, 1ST FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN,HYDERABAD - 500004 Order Sheet Item no.: 10 O.A./953/2025 (TELANGANA) [ REIMBURSEMENT ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: 16 Order Dated: 27/10/2026 P SATISH Vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : P RAMCHANDER RAO

For Respondent(s) Advocate : N NAGA PRASANTHI Order of The Tribunal Learned counsels for the parties are present. Learned counsel for the respondents highlighted para 3 of the Additional Reply which pertains to cases in which treatment is taken at non-empanelled hospitals. In the enclosed Railway Board Circular S.No.1 of Health/2007 dt.31.01.2007, and also OM dt. 22.05.2018 (A-11), which shows 7 conditions in which such cases for reimbursement of excess amount could be considered, according to her, not a single condition is covered by the applicant. She has also drawn attention to the table at para 8 of the reply statement. According to her, the treatment in all cases were taken up at a hospital that is not on the CGHS Panel, and also the ailment was not in the emergency category which is at Annex-A9. She has referred to the case law submitted by the applicant on 29.09.2026 in OA/400/2019, wherein the applicant was treated by Apollo Hospital only on being referred by the respondents. In OA/2154/2023 decided by the Principal Bench, CAT, the emergent condition was not in dispute. In OA/754/2021, decided by this Tribunal on 25.02.2026, the case was first reported at Railway Central Hospital, Lalaguda, and was taken to hospital in emergency. Annex-A4 with the OA shows that the wife of the applicant was already undergoing treatment and had not approached the non-empanelled MAA ENT Hospital in an emergency. Even after admission, they have neither sought prior permission nor informed the CGHS. On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant P. Satish was allowed to explain his case. He has argued that there was already a notice on the wall at Koti ENT Hospital that the injection required for Black Fungus was not available. It is noticed that the place where they have taken treatment in emergency, i.e., MAA ENT Hospital, has also sought the drug for speedy assistance. The applicant would like us to believe that the memo of MAA ENT is addressed to the State Government, whereas the so-called appeal is addressed to 'To whomsoever it may concern' at pg. 69. They have also enclosed, at pg 72 & 73 certain x-ray images to show the deterioration in the condition of the applicant's wife. There is no prescription of the same dates of the Vijaya Diagnostics / along with the images of the applicant's wife. He has drawn attention to para 31 of the order, dt. 17.11.2025, of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Kamal Kishore. (Annex-A18). Learned counsel for the applicant cites an essentiality-cum- emergency certificate showing that Smt. G. Neerja, wife of the applicant, was under treatment for black fungus treatment from 18.05.2021 to 07.06.2021 at MAA ENT Hospital. According to the CFR, this is merely a proforma which has been submitted at the time of submission of bills. It carries no date on it, and it has been filled up actually by the applicant himself, who is working as Chief Law Assistant. According to the CFA, the Memorandum of Sanction, dt. 23.09.2022, supports his case. According to the CFR, his appeal, dt. 13.06.2025 (R-8), contradicts his claim. During the course of arguments today, learned counsel for the applicant mentioned that his case has not been properly considered despite the emergent nature of the ailment, as well as the acute shortage of drugs and lack of facilities for treatment, even though Koti ENT Hospital was declared to be the Nodal Hospital for treatment of black fungus. Vide letter, dt. 07.07.2025, the Chief Health Director, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad has rejected the appeal of the applicant stating that the claim was already processed for admissible amount worked out to be Rs.4,26,955/-, as per CGHS rates. However, it is found that the department has sent another letter, dt.22.07.2025, at pg.16, which reads as follows: "On going through your case file, PCMD/SCR advised to resubmit the remaining bills as part of a fresh claim which shall be processed by CMS SC and justification decided as per the rules." Learned counsel for the respondents states the department is willing to consider his claim provided all the relevant bills are submitted without any discrepancy in dates and names. They have, however, made clear that the department can consider the bills only as per the CGHS rates and not as per the claim submitted by the applicant for the difference amount of Rs. 16,15,575/-. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to furnish official correspondence with the government regarding non-availability of essential drugs for Black Fungus, at the Koti ENT Hospital. Post the matter on 19.11.2026. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi Member (A) K Adilaxmi ( court master )