Sushma rai wife of late Dinesh Chandra rai vs All India Radio

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

1

(Reserved on 07.10.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

th
This the _14 day of _October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)



Original Application No. 820 of 2025
Sushma Ral wife of Late Dinesh Chandra Rai, R/o H. No.21 Y, Surya
Vihar Colony, Near Samay Mata Mandir, Gorakhnath, Gorakhpur.
……….. Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai.


Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting, Aakashvani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi.
2. Deputy Director General (Admin), Prasarbharti, India’s
Public Service Broadcaster Directorate General, Aakashvani,
Prasarbharti Secretariat, Prasarbharti House, Copernicus
Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi.
3. Additional Director General, (Northern Zone), All India
th
Radio, (Aakashvani) 8 Floor, Suchna Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Head of Office (HOO) Aakashvani Varanasi, Mahmoorganj,
Varanasi.
5. Head of Office, Aakashvani, Town Hall, Gorakhpur.
……….. Respondents.


By Advocates: Mr. Vidyapati Tripathi.

Order
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking
quashing of the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and a
Shakuntala Singh

2

direction to the respondents to reimburse her medical
expenses amounting to Rs. 3,96,145/-, along with interest. The

reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-
“(I) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to
quash the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed
by respondent no.2 (Annexure-9 of Compilation No.
1 to the O.A).

(II) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the
respondents to reimburse entire genuine medical
bills of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,96,145/-
along with interest.

(III) To issue any such other and further order or
direction which This Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit
and proper in the nature and circumstances of the
present case.

(IV) Cost of the application may also be awarded.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the
widow of Late Dinesh Chandra Rai, who was working as a
Stenographer at Akashvani, Gorakhpur, and died on
22.05.2021 due to COVID-19. During his illness, he underwent
treatment at different hospitals, including BRD Medical
College, Gorakhpur, where he was admitted on 16.05.2021
and remained under treatment until his death. The applicant
submitted medical bills for reimbursement of the expenses
incurred during his treatment. As the claim was not settled,
she sought information under the Right to Information Act,
2005, and thereafter pursued the matter through
representations and a grievance petition. Vide order dated
14.02.2025, the respondents directed examination of the
relevant medical documents. However, by the impugned
order dated 09.06.2025, the respondents rejected the claim on
the ground that the medical expenses pertained to a period
after the retirement date of the applicant’s husband, i.e.,
Shakuntala Singh

3

30.04.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached
this Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant’s husband contracted COVID-19 while in service
and continued to receive treatment without any break until his
death on 22.05.2021. It was contended that the subsequent
treatment was a continuation of the illness contracted during
service and, therefore, the medical expenses could not have
been rejected merely on the ground that the treatment
continued beyond the date of retirement. Learned counsel
further submitted that the respondents had failed to properly
examine the medical bills and supporting documents, despite
the applicant’s repeated representations. Reliance was placed
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab & Others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla , (1997) 2 SCC 83, to
contend that the State has an obligation to ensure the health of
its employees and that the applicant’s genuine medical
reimbursement claim deserves consideration in accordance
with law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the impugned order has been passed in
accordance with the applicable rules governing medical
attendance and reimbursement. It was contended that the
applicant’s husband retired from service on superannuation
on 30.04.2021 and had opted for CGHS facilities after
retirement. Since the medical treatment in question was
undertaken after his retirement, the applicant was not entitled
to reimbursement of the said expenses from the respondents
under the applicable rules. Learned counsel, therefore,
Shakuntala Singh

4

submitted that the Original Application is liable to be
dismissed.
5. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that
the pension papers of Late Dinesh Chandra Rai were
forwarded to the Pay and Accounts Office, Lucknow, on
12.10.2020, and the PPO was handed over to him on
12.04.2021. It has further been stated that he retired on
30.04.2021 and was admitted to Gorakhpur Chikitsalaya and
Research Centre, Gorakhpur, on 07.05.2021, before being
referred to BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur, on 16.05.2021,
where he died during treatment on 22.05.2021. According to
the respondents, an amount of Rs. 722/- towards medical
expenses for the period prior to retirement was paid to the
applicant on 05.06.2025, whereas the remaining claim of Rs.
3,96,142/- pertained to the post-retirement treatment period
from 07.05.2021 to 16.05.2021 and was not paid. The
respondents have relied upon The All India Services (Medical
Attendance) Rules, 1954 , contending that the said Rules apply
to members of the service while on duty, on leave or under
suspension, and that, after retirement, the applicant’s husband
was entitled to avail himself of CGHS facilities. On these
grounds, the respondents have justified the rejection of the
medical reimbursement claim.
6. In the rejoinder affidavit , the applicant has reiterated the
averments made in the Original Application and denied the
contrary assertions made in the counter affidavit. It has been
contended that her late husband contracted COVID-19 while
in service and that his subsequent hospitalization and
treatment were a continuation of the same illness, which
ultimately resulted in his death on 22.05.2021. The applicant
Shakuntala Singh

5

has further asserted that she had submitted the requisite
medical bills and documents, but the respondents failed to
trace and process the claim despite repeated representations
and proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is
submitted that the respondents have arbitrarily sanctioned
only Rs. 722/- against the genuine medical reimbursement
claim of Rs. 3,96,145/-, without properly considering the
nature of the illness, continuity of treatment and the
circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla ,
(1997) 2 SCC 83, and Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India ,
contending that genuine medical reimbursement claims
should not be rejected on hyper-technical grounds and that
the right to health is integral to the right to life under Article
21 of the Constitution. It has also been contended that the
impugned order dated 09.06.2025 is mechanical, non-
speaking and has been passed without proper application of
mind or consideration of the relevant medical records and the
circumstances of the case. The applicant has, therefore,
prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and the
respondents be directed to reimburse the admissible medical
expenses in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the
Office Memorandum dated 15.09.2011 issued by the Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, bearing F.
No. D.12011/64/98-CGHS Desk-I/CGHS(P), which is taken on
record. It is submitted that the said memorandum specifically
provides that expenditure incurred on treatment within three
months from the date of retirement may be reimbursed,
subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions regarding
Shakuntala Singh

6

obtaining or applying for a CGHS pensioner card, submission
of the requisite documents and payment of the requisite CGHS
subscription within the stipulated period. Learned counsel
contends that the respondents have rejected the applicant’s
genuine medical reimbursement claim merely on the ground
that the treatment continued beyond the date of retirement,
without properly examining the applicable instructions and
the fact that the deceased employee had contracted COVID-
19 while in service. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order dated 09.06.2025 is unsustainable and
deserves to be quashed.
8. I have heard Shri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for
the applicant, and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for
the respondents, and have carefully perused the pleadings on

record and the documents available therein.
9. The principal issue that arises for consideration is
whether the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of medical
expenses could have been rejected solely on the ground that
the treatment continued after the retirement of her husband,
Late Dinesh Chandra Rai, despite the fact that the illness had
commenced while he was still in service. In this regard, it is
relevant to refer to the Office Memorandum dated 15.09.2011
issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, bearing F. No. D.12011/64/98-CGHS
Desk-I/CGHS(P), on the subject “Reimbursement when
Pensioners take treatment immediately after Retirement before
getting CGHS Cards.” Clause (i) thereof reads as follows:-
“(i) The treatment taken and expenditure incurred thereon
within the grace period of three months from the date of
retirement will be allowed and expenditure reimbursable
subject to the condition that the beneficiary has either
obtained or applied for CGHS pensioner card with all
Shakuntala Singh

7

documents and requisite CGHS subscription within one
month of expiry of the grace period of three months.”
10. The aforesaid provision recognises the admissibility of
reimbursement for treatment taken and expenditure incurred
within the prescribed three-month grace period after
retirement, subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified
therein. Therefore, the mere fact that the treatment was taken
after retirement cannot, by itself, be treated as a sufficient
ground for rejecting the claim without examining the
applicability of the aforesaid Office Memorandum and the
relevant medical reimbursement rules.
11. In the present case, the material on record indicates that
Late Dinesh Chandra Rai contracted COVID-19 while in
service and that his treatment commenced on 27.04.2021. He
retired on 30.04.2021. Thereafter, his condition deteriorated,
and he was admitted to Gorakhpur Chikitsalaya and Research
Centre on 07.05.2021. He was subsequently referred to and
admitted to B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, on
16.05.2021, where he remained under treatment until his
death on 22.05.2021. Thus, the treatment and hospitalisation
after retirement occurred within the three-month grace period
contemplated by the aforesaid Office Memorandum. The
respondents have stated that an amount of ₹ 722/- was paid
towards the admissible expenses relating to the period before
retirement, whereas the remaining claim was rejected on the
ground that the treatment had been taken after retirement.
The applicant has claimed reimbursement of ₹ 3,96,145/-,
while the counter affidavit refers to an unpaid amount of
₹ 3,96,142/-. The discrepancy between these figures, as well
as the amount already paid, is required to be reconciled with
reference to the original bills and the relevant records.
Shakuntala Singh

8

12. The legal position concerning reimbursement of medical
expenses has also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla &
Others , (1997) 2 SCC 83; AIR 1997 SC 1225, decided on
17.12.1996. The judgment recognises the importance of
medical facilities and the obligation of the State in relation to
the health of its employees, subject to the applicable rules
and policy. Further, in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India , W.P. (C)
No. 694 of 2015, decided on 13.04.2018, reported as 2018
INSC 339; AIR 2018 SC 1975; (2018) 16 SCC 187, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered medical reimbursement under the
Central Government Health Scheme and emphasised that
genuine medical claims should not be rejected on merely
technical grounds when the genuineness of the treatment is
established. The applicability of these principles must,
however, be considered in the context of the governing rules
and the facts of the individual case.
13. Applying the aforesaid principles and the Office
Memorandum dated 15.09.2011 to the present matter, the
impugned order dated 09.06.2025 cannot be sustained merely
on the ground that the treatment continued after retirement,
without proper consideration of the fact that the illness had
commenced during service, the treatment after retirement
was undertaken within the prescribed grace period, and the
Office Memorandum dated 15.09.2011 specifically addresses
reimbursement in such circumstances. The respondents were
required to examine the claim in the light of the said Office
Memorandum and the relevant medical records, rather than
reject it solely on the basis of the date of retirement.
Shakuntala Singh

9

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original
Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.06.2025
is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents/competent
authority is directed to pay the amount found admissible
towards the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of medical
expenses, in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated
15.09.2011 and the applicable rules, along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum, within three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
15. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand

disposed of accordingly.

( Rajnish Kumar Rai )
Member (J)

/Shakuntala/

Shakuntala Singh