O.P. Shukla vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1836 Del

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner by the present petition assails the judgment and order dated 17.1.2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CAT) dismissing his OA No. 1224/96. By the impugned order his prayer for payment of a further sum of Rs. 1,69,550/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses was rejected. This demand was based on the difference in the rate of exchange of US Dollars at the time of sanction of payment to him, in 1995 and the rate of exchange at which the medical expenses were incurred by him, in 1991-92. Respondent had earlier rejected his request for payment of the differential vide orders dated 25.5.1995, 29.9.195 and 8.3.1996, all of which were impugned before CAT.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly noted:

i. Petitioner was posted as Accounts Officer in the Embassy of India, Washington DC on deputation from 13.1.1987 to 21.9.1990 from Department of Fertilisers, that is Respondent No. 1. Upon his return from his deputation, he joined the Ministry of Home Affairs as Pay and Accounts officer on 11.12.1990.

ii. During the tenure in Washington, his wife had to undergo an emergent life saving operation for breast cancer on 1.5.1991 on the advice of the Authorised Medical Attendant of the Embassy of India, Washington DC. Bills were submitted for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during 22.4.1991 to 28.6.1991 amounting to US $ 12,218.5 and 27.2.1992 to 9.4.1992 amounting to US $ 785.11 . Petitioner submitted that he incurred medical expenses to the tune of US $ 13004 (approx.) for the treatment of his wife in USA, of which he sought reimbursement. It may be noted here that the exchange rate of US Dollar during April to June 1991 was Rs. 18.05 whereas the same had risen to Rs. 25.95 in February, 1992 and Rs. 31.55 in February, 1995.

iii. Respondent, after some delay had sanctioned the reimbursement of the amount of medical expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,40,726/- by letter dated 6.2.1995. This letter, it is alleged did not mention the rate of exchange at which reimbursement was granted. Thereafter petitioner made repeated representations for sanction of additional sum of Rs. 1,69,550/- which was payable as per the rate of exchange on the date of sanction at Rs. 31.55 per dollar. The first of such demand was dated 16.3.1995. The same was rejected on 25.5.1995 stating as follows:

The undersigned is directed to refer to your letter dated 15.3.1995 requesting for payment of difference between current rate of exchange and the rate of exchange at which payment of medical reimbursement claim has already been made and to say that your request has been examined in this Department and it can not be acceded to.

Comprehensive representation dated 17.8.1995 was also made by the petitioner, which was also rejected on 29.9.1995. Thereafter the petitioner made another representation dated 1.3.1996 for reconsideration which too was finally rejected on 8.3.1996.

iv. OA No. 1224/1996 was preferred by the petitioner, challenging the aforesaid rejections and seeking payment of the remaining amount computed on the basis of differential in the exchange rate as on the date of payment by the Department. Reliance was placed on Section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It was the petitioner's case that he is entitled to the same rate of exchange of US $ equivalent in terms of rupees, which the Government applies for making recoveries and the Government cannot have two rates for this purpose.

v. The Department responded by saying that the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the wife of the petitioner was actually not provided for in the Assisted Medical Attendance (AMA) Scheme, though extension of stay in US and passage to India was permitted. However taking a compassionate view, his wife was permitted to stay back up to 19.12.1991 and the reimbursement was sanctioned.

vi. The CAT vide its judgment and order dated 17.1.2000 dismissed the OA and request of the petitioner holding that the respondents have followed the laid down rules and instructions regarding the rate of exchange to be applied for such payments. The argument of the petitioner for application of the provisions of Section 8(2) of FERA was also rejected on the ground that the respondents have a separate set of norms and rules to deal with the issue raised in the OA.

3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the rate of exchange made applicable to his claim for medical reimbursement and secondly by the delay in sanction of his claim. His submission is that the rate of exchange applicable for reimbursement of his claim should be the rate of exchange of a US Dollar as on 6.2.1995, i.e. the date of formal sanction. He incurred expenditure of $ 13004.01 on the treatment of his wife, since deceased. He was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,40,726/- on 6.2.1995. The rate of exchange at the time of payment of the claim was Rs. 31.55 per Dollar, meaning thereby that the amount sanctioned in his favor should have been Rs. 4,10,276/-. Therefore he claims to have incurred a loss of Rs. 1,69,750/-.

4. Mr. Pankaj Batra appearing for the respondent submits that the reimbursement itself was a concession to the petitioner. It was submitted that there is no provision in the AMA Scheme for extension of medical benefit to the family members staying in a Country other than the place of the officer's posting. In the instant case in view of the life saving emergent treatment required for petitioner's wife who was suffering from cancer, he was allowed the facility. It was done on compassionate grounds and as a special case, after obtaining the approval of the Director General Health Scheme. Respondent No. 1 sanctioned the reimbursement at the exchange rate prevalent at the time of incurring the expenditure. The same amounted to Rs. 2,40,726/-. It was submitted that fluctuation in the exchange rates is a normal phenomena. The US Dollar could have fluctuated both ways, petitioner was entitled to reimbursement at the rate that prevailed at the time of the medical treatment. Therefore the benefit of appreciation, or an unjust enrichment cannot be allowed. Reliance was placed on letter No. O/FE/754/2/91 dated 19.8.1991 of the Ministry of External Affairs where the following was stated:

...it has been decided that in all such cases involving payment due in one foreign currency but made in another foreign currency, the conversion has to be done through Indian Rupee at official rate of exchange. The rate of exchange between the foreign currencies and Indian rupees should be determined by the date when the payment is actually made.

It was submitted that the rate of exchange between the foreign currencies and Indian Rupee should be determined by the date when the expense was incurred.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, and the submissions made, we are of the view that once the respondents have sanctioned the medical reimbursement, it is idle to contend that the same was a special favor to the petitioner. At the same time the petitioner cannot be permitted to enrich himself by reason of the increase in the exchange rate of US Dollars as against the Rupee. Reimbursement can only be sanctioned, of the amount actually spent by the petitioner and nothing more. His claim for being reimbursed at the exchange rates prevailing in February, 1995 cannot be sustained.

6. Nonetheless, the issue that remains is the claim for compensating the petitioner for the delay in release of the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. All bills were submitted by him to the Department latest by April, 1992. Taking 6 months as the maximum period for processing and releasing the payment, it takes us to October, 1992. The payment was unduly delayed and actually released on 6.2.1995. There is no explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate to compensate the petitioner who had to wait long for the release of the reimbursement of medical expenses.

Accordingly, we award simple interest on the sum of Rs. 2,40,726/- at the rate of 6% p.a. from 1.11.1992 to 6.2.1995 to be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondents within 2 months from today.

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.