Headline: Pensioners entitled to medical reimbursement for emergency treatment despite Fixed Medical Allowance.

The applicant, Jit Singh, retired as a Postmaster (HSG-I) on March 31, 2004.

On January 27, 2025, he suffered a severe chest pain and breathing problem, leading to his admission to Fortis-Escort Hospital, Amritsar, where he underwent an operation with stent installation on January 30, 2025.

The total cost of treatment was Rs. 3,13,189/-.

As a Central Government employee, he applied for medical reimbursement on April 28, 2025, but his claim was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on April 28, 2025, stating it was "not admissible as per Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944".

The respondents argued that the pensioner was receiving Fixed Medical Allowance and the 1944 Rules did not apply to retired government servants.

Whether the applicant, a retired Central Government employee, is entitled to medical reimbursement for emergency treatment despite the respondents' contention that Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, do not apply to pensioners and they receive Fixed Medical Allowance.

Whether the rejection order dated April 28, 2025, denying medical reimbursement, is sustainable in law.

The Tribunal primarily applied the legal principle that pensioners are entitled to medical reimbursement for treatment, citing the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mohan Lal Gupta (supra), which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It further relied on the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kant Jha v Union of India [W.P(C)No.695/2015].

The Tribunal also acknowledged previous rulings in Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India reported as 2008(2) SCT 239 and Union of India Vs. Shankar Lal Sharma reported as 2016(1) SCT 414.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' argument that the CS (MA) Rules 1944 do not cover pensioners, and therefore the applicant is not entitled to medical reimbursement, had been previously negated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohan Lal Gupta (supra), a decision affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Tribunal referenced identical cases it had previously decided, such as Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 267/2021) and O.A No.060/00737/2017, where it held that retirees/pensioners are entitled to medical reimbursement, rejecting the plea that Fixed Medical Allowance negates this entitlement.

The court thus applied these established precedents to the facts of the present case, concluding that the rejection order was unsustainable.

The order was quashed and set aside, and the Original Application was allowed.

The respondents were directed to settle the medical claim of the applicant with regard to his treatment, at the CGHS rates, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.