Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ishwar Singh
2014 Latest Caselaw 4432 Del

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                  Decided on: 15.09.2014

+      W.P.(C) 6123/2014, C.M. NOS. 14863-14865/2014
       DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION         .....Petitioner
                    Through : Sh. Anand-Nandan, Advocate.

                          Versus

       ISHWAR SINGH                                   ......Respondent

Through : None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)

% C.M. NO.14863 & 14865/2014 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 6123/2014, C.M. NO.14864/2014 (for stay)

1. The petitioner, the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereafter "DTC") in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions an order dated 08.03.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter "the Tribunal"), in O.A. No. 1069/2012 which directed it to consider the claim of the respondent for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him in

W.P.(C) 6123/2014 Page 1 connection with his wife's ailment w.e.f. 24.12.2008 and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the date of the CAT's order.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent applicant is working as an Assistant Foreman in the DTC at Bawana Depot, Delhi. His wife, Smt. Santra Devi, fell ill on the night of 23.12.2008 and was admitted in the emergency ward, at Sonia Hospital, Delhi. This was informed telephonically on 23.12.2008 itself by the respondent to one Ishwar Singh, Mechanic (Badge No. 3887) in the DTC office. The respondent's wife subsequently suffered a serious brain haemorrhage and was rushed to VIMHANS Hospital, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi. This fact too was duly communicated to the DTC. The respondent's wife unfortunately expired on 29.12.2008.

3. The respondent submitted his representation to the DTC on 30.04.2009 requesting reimbursement of the expenses incurred for the treatment of his wife in accordance with the rules of the organisation. The DTC rejected his request by order dated 16.12.2009, stating that the information regarding his wife's admission in emergency was not given within 24 hours mandated by the Office Order No. 16 dated 27.08.1991 issued for providing Special Medical Facility to the DTC employees. The DTC rejected a subsequent representation of the respondent by its order dated 24.02.2012. The respondent accordingly filed O.A. No. 1069/2012, before the CAT. The CAT, by the impugned order, directed the DTC to consider the respondent's claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in connection with his wife's ailment and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the date of the Tribunal's order.

W.P.(C) 6123/2014 Page 2

4. The DTC is aggrieved by the impugned order which, in relevant part, is as follows:

"8. The issue involved in this present OA relates to reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the applicant on the treatment of his wife on admission in the hospital in emergency case, who subsequently died. It is seen that the respondents have not denied the fact of admission of applicant's wife in an emergent situation on 23.12.2008 in Sonia Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi, who subsequently died on 29.12.2008. Though the respondents denied the contention of the applicant that he has furnished the information about his wife's admission in the Hospital on 23.12.2008 but stated that they got the said information on 25.12.2008. However, they refused the reimbursement of medical expenses relying on Clause 3 of the Office Order No. 16 dated 27.08.1991 that the applicant has not intimated the admission of his wife into the Hospital in emergency within time stipulated therein. Since the act of admission of the applicant's wife into the Hospital and the consequential expenditure incurred by the applicant is not denied or disputed, refusing to reimburse the entire expenditure on the ground that the applicant informed about the admission of his wife with delay of one day is unreasonable and unsustainable. The applicant is entitled for reimbursement of all the medical expenses with effect from one day prior to the admitted date of information."

(emphasis added)"

5. The DTC argues that the Original Application was liable to be dismissed as having been filed beyond the period of limitation. Further, the CAT has not appreciated the various circulars and office orders on the basis of which medical reimbursement of an employee is granted. The respondent did not observe the procedure which required him to communicate the factum of his wife's hospitalisation within the

W.P.(C) 6123/2014 Page 3 stipulated period of 24 hours and instead, tried to mislead the DTC by manipulating its records with the help of his junior.

6. The respondent argues that he had informed the DTC about his wife's hospitalisation in emergency on the night of 23.12.2008 itself through Ishwar Singh. Further, even otherwise, the petitioner admitted that this information was received on 25.12.2008. No other ground was taken to reject the respondent's claim and, therefore, he is entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred.

7. The issue that requires resolution is whether despite the delay on the part of the respondent to file the application before the CAT, is it appropriate for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226.

8. At the outset, it is necessary to highlight that Ishwar Singh (mechanic) submitted that the respondent did inform him telephonically on the night of 23.12.2008 that his wife has been admitted and that he would not be reporting for duty. Further, although the petitioner has denied this specific contention of the respondent, it stated that it received the information on 25.12.2008. However, the DTC has not denied the fact of admission of the respondent's wife in an emergent situation on 23.12.2008. Therefore, the admission of the respondent's wife into the hospital and the consequential expenditure incurred by him is not denied or disputed by the petitioner - the DTC. The crux of the dispute centres around two aspects, i.e. the alleged departure from procedure prescribed by the DTC in its circulars for intimation of emergencies and medical treatment of its employees and their dependents and, two, the delay involved in the applicant/respondent approaching the CAT.

W.P.(C) 6123/2014 Page 4

9. The Supreme Court has defined "dispute" as "a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of a claim by one party and its denial by the other." (Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad AIR 1979 SC 1203).

10. The Court also clarified that the existence of a dispute in a particular case depends upon the facts and circumstances (Ref Major Inder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1988 SC 1007). The existence of a dispute between the parties is a mandatory pre-requisite to entertain any legal action, including a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts in the present case do not reveal the existence of any dispute between the parties as to the core of the claim, i.e the truth of whether the respondent's wife was admitted in emergency and required urgent medical attention. Although the DTC has denied the specific contention of the applicant/respondent that he had communicated his wife's hospitalisation in emergency to the DTC on the night of 23.12.2012 itself, it does not deny or dispute the hospitalisation or that the respondent incurred expenditure towards his wife's treatment. The DTC has admitted to having received the information about the respondent's wife hospitalisation on 25.12.2008.

11. The circumstances surrounding the present matter accordingly reflect an unreasonable attitude on the part of the DTC to deny reimbursement to the respondent merely on the ground that he allegedly intimated the petitioner about the hospitalisation of his wife just one day late. As regards the delay on part of the respondent to file

W.P.(C) 6123/2014 Page 5 the Original Application, it has been held time and again that delay may be condoned upon demonstration of sufficient cause. This Court is conscious that Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribe periods of limitation in such cases which in a sense also circumscribe the jurisdiction of those Tribunals. However, such limitations cannot curtail the powers of this Court in cases where exercise of judicial review, of orders of the CAT, would result in failure of justice. An oft repeated adage is that rules of procedure are only "handmaidens" of justice. If, as is asserted by the DTC, they prevail inevitably, the result would be miscarriage of justice.

12. This Court accordingly finds no infirmity in the impugned order and directs the DTC to comply with the order within four weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms; there shall be no order as to costs.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 15, 2014

W.P.(C) 6123/2014 Page 6