HARBHAJAN SINGH vs DEFENCE

​1​ ​(O.A.No.060/644/2025)​
​CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL​
​CHANDIGARH BENCH​
​O.A.No.060/644/2025​
​th​
​Chandigarh, the 14​ ​day of August, 2026​
​CORAM:​
​HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)​
​Harbhajan​ ​Singh​ ​S/o​ ​Hardial​ ​Singh,​ ​aged​ ​68​ ​years,​ ​Ex-Office​
​Superintendent​ ​(Group-B),​ ​presently​ ​resident​ ​of​​H.No.​​4447,​​Street​​No.​
​1, Nai Basti, Bathinda - 151001.​
​...Applicant​
​[By Advocate: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal]​
​VERSUS​
​1.​ ​Union​​of​​India​​through​​Secretary,​​Ministry​​of​​Defence,​​South​​Block,​
​New Delhi - 110011.​
​2.​ ​Commandant,​ ​36​ ​Field​ ​Ammunition​ ​Dept,​ ​C/o​ ​56​ ​APO,​ ​Pin​ ​-​
​900484.​
​…Respondents​
​[By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Ms. Jashandeep Kaur]​
​O R D E R​
​Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):​
​1.​ ​The​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​19​ ​of​ ​the​
​Administrative​ ​Tribunals​ ​Act,​ ​1985,​ ​is​ ​directed​ ​against​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​
​respondents​ ​in​ ​defying​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​for​ ​medical​
​reimbursement​​for​​medical​​treatment​​taken​​by​​him.​​The​​applicant​​prays​
​for reliefs as under:​
​“I.​​That​​respondents​​be​​directed​​to​​be​​directed​​to​​disburse​​the​​full​​amount​
​of​ ​medical​ ​reimbursement​ ​i.e.​ ​Rs.1,19,867,​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant,​ ​treatment​
​being taken in emergency conditions.​
​II.​ ​That​ ​respondents​ ​be​ ​also​ ​directed​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​interest​ ​@​ ​9%​ ​p.a.w.e.f.​
2026.09.10
17:07:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
​11.06.2021​​till​​actual​​payment​​on​​delayed​​payment​​of​​interest​​as​​it​​is​​the​
​respondents​​who​​have​​denied​​and​​deprived​​the​​applicant,​​rightful​​medical​
​dues, in most illegal manner.​
​III.​​This​​Hon'ble​​Tribunal​​may​​also​​pass​​any​​other​​order​​for​​the​​grant​​of​
​relief​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​which​ ​it​ ​may​ ​deem​ ​fit​ ​in​ ​the​ ​peculiar​ ​facts​ ​and​
​circumstances of the case.​

​2​ ​(O.A.No.060/644/2025)​
​IV.​ ​That​ ​costs​ ​of​ ​application​ ​may​ ​also​ ​be​ ​awarded​ ​in​ ​favour​ ​of​ ​the​
​applicant.”​
​2.​ ​Facts​​of​​the​​case​​in​​brief​​are​​that​​the​​Applicant​​has​​retired​​from​
​government​ ​service​ ​as​ ​Office​ ​Superintendent​ ​w.e.f.​ ​31.03.2017,​ ​and​ ​is​
​drawing​ ​his​ ​pension​ ​through​ ​PPO​ ​no.​ ​C/DAD/16379/2014.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​stated​
​that​ ​after​ ​his​ ​retirement,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​is​ ​residing​ ​at​ ​Sujanpur​ ​near​
​Bathinda,​​and​​since​​no​​CGHS​​dispensary​​was​​available​​at​​Bathinda​​or​​at​
​nearby​ ​stations​ ​for​ ​medical​ ​treatment​ ​of​ ​government​ ​employees,​
​applicant​ ​opted​ ​for​ ​fixed​ ​medical​ ​allowance​ ​for​ ​his​ ​day-to-day​ ​medical​
​treatment.​
​3.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​averred​ ​that​ ​in​ ​August​ ​2020,​ ​applicant​ ​suffered​ ​from​ ​fever,​
​breathlessness​​and​​was​​detected​​with​​lung​​problems​​and​​his​​family​​took​
​him​ ​in​ ​emergency​ ​to​ ​Max​ ​Super​ ​specialty​ ​Bathinda​ ​and​ ​at​ ​Delhi​ ​Heart​
​Institute​​and​​super​​specialty​​Hospital.​​Accordingly,​​the​​applicant​​incurred​
​upon​ ​Rs.3,89,784/-​ ​on​ ​his​ ​treatment.​ ​Payment​ ​of​ ​said​ ​dues​ ​has​ ​been​
​made​ ​after​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​08.02.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​this​
​Tribunal​ ​in​ ​O.A.​ ​No.60/126/2021.​ ​The​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​truncated​ ​amount​ ​of​
​Rs.2,86,243/- has been made only on 14.02.2024 (Annexure A-1).​
​4.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​again​ ​fell​ ​ill​ ​and​ ​remained​ ​in​
​Indoor​ ​treatment​ ​Kalra​ ​Super​ ​at​ ​Specialty​ ​Hospital,​ ​Bathinda​ ​from​
​17.12.2020​​to​​28.12.2020,​​and​​again​​spent​​Rs.​​1,19,867/-.​​It​​is​​averred​
​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​not​ ​admitted​ ​in​ ​a​ ​recognized​ ​hospital/govt.​
​hospital​​due​​to​​COVID​​19​​and​​his​​family​​members​​were​​left​​with​​no​​other​
​alternative​ ​except​ ​to​ ​take​ ​him​ ​to​ ​the​ ​private​ ​hospital​ ​as​ ​aforesaid​ ​in​
​emergency.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​submitted​ ​medical​ ​bills​ ​vide​ ​his​ ​applications​
2026.09.10
17:07:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
​dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure A-4) to the respondent no. 2.​
​5.​ ​It​​is​​the​​contention​​of​​the​​applicant​​that​​his​​request​​has​​not​​been​
​considered​​by​​the​​respondent​​no.2​​saying​​such​​medical​​reimbursement​​is​
​not​​admissible​​as​​per​​existing​​medical​​rules​​and​​also​​due​​to​​pending​​CWP​

​3​ ​(O.A.No.060/644/2025)​
​3551/2021,​​where​​order​​dated​​20.05.2022​​to​​release​​medical​​claim​​have​
​already​ ​been​​passed,​​subject​​to​​decision​​in​​CWP.​​It​​is​​submitted​​by​​the​
​applicant​ ​that​ ​the​ ​issue​ ​raised​ ​in​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case​ ​is​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​res​
​intergra​ ​and​ ​has​ ​been​ ​settled​ ​in​ ​numerous​ ​court​ ​orders/judgments.​
​Reference​​in​​the​​case​​is​​made​​to​​the​​order​​dated​​07.05.2018​​in​​the​​bunch​
​of​ ​petitions​ ​titled​ ​as​ ​Nathu​ ​Ram​ ​Vs.​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​&​ ​others​ ​(OA​ ​no.​
​255/2024),​​copy​​enclosed​​as​​Annexure​​A-5​​and​​by​​the​​jurisdictional​​High​
​court​​in​​the​​case​​of​ ​Union​​of​​India​​&​​ors.​​Vs.​​Mohan​​Lal​​Gupta​ ​(CWP​​No.​
​11329 OF 2016) decided on 17.01.2018.​
​6.​ ​Per​​contra,​​it​​is​​submitted​​by​​the​​respondents​​that​​medical​​claim​​of​
​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​disallowed​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​rules​ ​position​
​available​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​CS​ ​(MA)​ ​Rules,​ ​1944.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​retired​
​Central​ ​Government​ ​employees​ ​do​ ​not​ ​come​ ​under​ ​the​ ​purview​ ​of​ ​CS​
​(MA)​ ​Rules,​ ​1944,​ ​and​ ​are,​ ​hence,​ ​not​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​medical​
​reimbursement.​
​7.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​
​already​ ​opted​ ​for​ ​fixed​ ​medical​ ​allowance​ ​(FMA)​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​his​
​retirement,​​which​​is​​for​​availing​​medical​​treatment​​and​​medical​​claim​​bill​
​is​ ​not​ ​to​ ​be​​forwarded​​to​​ZAO/PAO​​for​​making​​payment​​as​​the​​same​​is​
​not​ ​admissible.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​since​ ​the​
​applicant​​opted​​FMA​​at​​the​​time​​of​​his​​retirement​​and​​had​​not​​opted​​for​
​CGHS​​facility​​(IPD​​facility)​​for​​any​​neighboring​​city,​​the​​bill​​submitted​​by​
​the applicant is not payable under CS(MA) rules.​
​8.​ ​I​​have​​heard​​the​​arguments​​addressed​​by​​learned​​counsel​​for​​both​
2026.09.10
17:07:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
​sides and perused the material on record.​
​9.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​not​ ​in​ ​dispute​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​retired​ ​from​ ​government​
​service​ ​as​ ​Office​ ​Superintendent​ ​w.e.f.​ ​31.03.2017,​ ​and​ ​Fixed​ ​Medical​
​Allowance​ ​had​ ​been​ ​given​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant.​ ​Further,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​​in​​dispute​
​that​​the​​applicant​​remained​​hospitalized​​from​​17.12.2020​​to​​28.12.2020​

​4​ ​(O.A.No.060/644/2025)​
​and​​paid​​Rs.​​1,19,867/-​​to​​the​​hospital​​for​​treatment.​​Learned​​counsel​​for​
​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​case​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​is​ ​covered​ ​by​
​judgment​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​​dated​​19.01.2023​​in​​a​​bunch​​of​​OAs,​
​lead​​case​​being​​OA​​No.​​714/2020​​titled​ ​Surinder​​Mohan​​Vs​​Union​​of​​India​
​&​ ​ors.​ ,​ ​wherein​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​has​ ​discussed​ ​the​ ​various​ ​judicial​
​pronouncements regarding the controversy of medical reimbursement.​
​10.​ ​Vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​19.01.2023,​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​has​ ​rendered​ ​its​
​judgment​ ​in​ ​a​ ​bunch​ ​of​ ​cases​ ​led​ ​by​ ​OA​​No.​​714/2020​​titled​ ​Surinder​
​Mohan​​Vs​​Union​​of​​India​​&​​ors.​ ​,​​wherein,​​this​​Tribunal​​has​​considered​​the​
​following questions:​
​1. Whether the CS(MA) Rules are applicable to retired persons.​
​2.​​Whether​​the​​retirees​​who​​have​​opted​​for​​fixed​​medical​​allowance​
​are entitled to medical reimbursement of indoor treatment.​
​3.​ ​Whether​ ​the​ ​applicants​ ​are​ ​entitled​ ​for​​medical​​reimbursement​
​for emergency treatment.​
​4.​ ​Whether​ ​the​ ​retired​ ​employees​ ​who​ ​have​ ​not​ ​opted​ ​for​
​indoor/outdoor​ ​facility​ ​are​ ​entitled​ ​to​ ​reimbursement​ ​of​ ​medical​
​facility.​
​This​ ​Tribunal​ ​held​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​questions​ ​as​ ​settled​ ​on​​the​​strength​​of​
​several​ ​judicial​ ​pronouncements​ ​wherein​ ​the​ ​controversy​ ​qua​ ​medical​
​reimbursement​ ​has​ ​been​ ​discussed,​ ​and​ ​relying​ ​on​ ​the​ ​law​ ​settled​ ​by​
​Hon’ble​​Apex​​Court​​in​​the​​matters​​of​ ​Shiva​​Kant​​Jha​​vs.​​Union​​of​​India,​
​WP(C)​ ​No.​ ​694​ ​of​ ​2015​ ​decided​ ​on​ ​13.04.2018,​ ​Sudershan​ ​Kumar​
​Sharma​​vs.​​Union​​of​​India​ ,​​2013(1)​​SCT,​​817,​​and​​also​​the​​case​​of​ ​Union​
​of​​India​​vs.​​Mohan​​Lal​​Gupta​​&​​ors.​ ​decided​​on​​17.01.2018,​​this​​Tribunal​
2026.09.10
17:07:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'
​granted relief to the applicants.​
​11.​ ​This​ ​Tribunal​ ​has​ ​considered​ ​the​​matter.​​In​​view​​of​​the​​discussion​
​hereinabove,​​we​​find​​that​​the​​case​​of​​the​​applicant​​is​​squarely​​covered​​by​
​the​​order​​passed​​by​​this​​Tribunal​​in​ ​Surinder​​Mohan​​Vs​​Union​​of​​India​​&​

​5​ ​(O.A.No.060/644/2025)​
​ors.​ ​(supra),​ ​and​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​denying​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​
​applicant​​for​​medical​​reimbursement​​is​​in​​contravention​​of​​the​​law​​settled​
​up​ ​to​ ​Hon’ble​ ​Apex​ ​Court.​ ​Resultantly,​ ​the​ ​present​ ​OA​ ​is​ ​allowed.​
​Respondents​​are​​directed​​to​​disburse​​medical​​reimbursement​​to​​the​​tune​
​of​​Rs.​​1,19,867/-​​to​​the​​applicant,​​along​​with​​interest​​@​​GPF​​rate​​w.e.f.​
​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​filing​ ​the​ ​OA​ ​till​ ​the​ ​payment​ ​is​ ​realised.​ ​The​ ​aforesaid​
​exercise shall be carried out within six weeks of the receipt of this order.​
​12.​ ​The​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​stands​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​in​ ​the​ ​above​ ​terms.​
​Pending​ ​Miscellaneous​ ​Applications,​ ​if​ ​any,​ ​shall​ ​stand​ ​disposed​ ​of​
​accordingly. No order as to costs.​
​(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)​
​MEMBER (J)​
​/s/​
2026.09.10
17:07:40
SHIVAM
+05'30'