Delhi High Court
Mukul Talwar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 March, 2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:23.03.2021
22:53:25
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th March, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 3432/2021
MUKUL TALWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Mr. Aman Bhalla,
Ms. Riya Gulati and Ms. Pallavi
Saigal, Advocates. (M:8826971251)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sarika Singh, Advocate with Ms.
Dacchita Shahi GP, Advocate.
(M:9971556985)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.10410/2021 (for delay in filing)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 389 days in
filing the petition is condoned. Application is disposed of.
CM APPL.10411/2021 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3432/2021
3. The present petition has been filed seeking reimbursement of the
medical expenses incurred on the medical treatment of Smt. Raj Mohini
Talwar, who was the wife of a former judge of this Court Justice Charanjit
Talwar, and is since deceased.
4. The present petition has been preferred by Mr. Mukul Talwar, the son
of the deceased mother, seeking reimbursement of Rs.5,58,245/-, which was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:23.03.2021
22:53:25
incurred during the treatment of the deceased from 4th March, 2015 to 2nd
April, 2015.
5. Ms. Sarika Singh, ld. counsel has entered appearance for the Union of
India.
6. A perusal of the letters on record shows that the deceased - Smt. Raj
Mohini Talwar had repeatedly written to the authorities for reimbursement
from time to time but only portions of the claim were reimbursed. No
reasons have been given in the calculation sheets placed on record as to why
the other reimbursements are not being made.
7. Mr. Kirti Uppal, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the only possible reason could be that the hospital where the
deceased was undergoing treatment was a private hospital i.e. Fortis
Hospital. Ld. Senior counsel relies upon two judgments i.e., the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC
187 and the judgment of this Court in Basant Dabas v. Govt. of India &
Ors., [W.P.(C) 9849/2015, decided on 31st July, 2019] to argue that even if
the CGHS beneficiary is admitted to a private hospital, as in the present case
where the deceased was, in fact, admitted in the ICU, that is no ground for
not granting reimbursement.
8. Heard. Smt. Raj Mohini Talwar was the wife of a retired Judge of this
Court. Even during her lifetime, she repeatedly raised claims for
reimbursement on 20th December, 2016, 5th January, 2017 and 3rd February,
2017. The office of the Additional Director, CGHS has simply written
communications on 20th January, 2017 and 15th February, 2017 giving the
claimed amounts and the admissible amounts. A perusal of the said
calculations shows that no reasons have been given for refusal of a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:23.03.2021
22:53:25
substantial portion of the claims.
9. Insofar as Judges of this Court and their spouses are concerned,
various facilitates have been extended by the High Court, from time to time.
As far back as on 17th September, 2014, the Medical Committee of the Delhi
High Court had taken a decision that retired High Court Judges and their
spouses would be entitled to the same medical benefits as are available to
sitting High Court Judges. Medical treatment taken from private hospitals is
also liable to be reimbursed to former judges and their dependent family
members. Vide office memorandum dated 14th May, 2018, issued by the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, the sanctioning of medical
reimbursement claims is permitted to be made by the Delhi High Court
Registry itself. The relevant extract of the said office memorandum is set out
below:
"3. It has also been decided to delegate the
power for relaxation of rules for sanctioning of
medical reimbursement claims or for sanctioning
of medical advances in respect of Sitting as well
as Retired Chief Justices and Judges of High
Court of Delhi to Registrar General of High Court
of Delhi, who shall exercise this power with prior
approval of Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi
or his/her nominee subject to the condition that
the reimbursement of medical expenses to the Rtd.
Chief Justices of High Court of Delhi and Judges
of High Court of Delhi holding CGHS pensioners'
card would also be made by the Delhi High Court
Registry."
10. Pursuant to the said office memorandum, the High Court of Delhi,
vide order dated 23nd August, 2018, on the Administrative side, has
delegated the power to the ld. Registrar General in respect of the amounts up
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:23.03.2021
22:53:25
to Rs.1,00,000/- and to the Medical Committee in respect of amounts which
are higher than Rs.1,00,000/-. The said order is also reproduced below:
"In terms of O.M. No. S.11030/06/2018-EHSS
dated 14.05.2018 issued by Government of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department
of Health & Family Welfare, EHS Section, Hon'ble
the then Acting Chief Justice Vide orders dated
24.05.2018 has been pleased to delegate the
powers for relaxation of rules for sanctioning of
medical reimbursement claims or medical advances
in respect of sitting as well as Retired Chief
Justices and Judges of this Court, (i) to the
Registrar General of this Court, if there is a
difference in the amount for re-imbursement under
CGHS Rule and that charged by the empanelled/
non-empanelled Hospitals upto Rs.1,00,000/- and
(ii) to the Medical Committee, if the said amount
exceeds Rs.1,00,000/-, subject to the approval of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question of
reimbursement to judges in various States in Contempt Petition No.
425/2016 & 426/2016 in Justice V.S. Dave President, The Association of
Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors
[W.P.(C) 523/2002, decided on 24th October, 2018]. The Supreme Court
has clearly directed that the following facilities shall be provided to all
retired chief Justices and Judges of High Courts, including their spouses and
dependent family members, on a uniform basis throughout the country qua
medical facilities:
"1. All facilities at par with sitting Judges;
2. Reimbursement for medical treatment in
private hospital without prior approval of the
State Government;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:23.03.2021
22:53:25
3. Sanctioning authority to be the Registrar
General of the High Court;
4. Reimbursement to be provided for treatment
taken in any other State; and
5. Cashless facility."
12. In view of the above decision and in view of the settled position in
law in Shiva Kant Jha (supra) and Basant Dabas (supra), the Petitioner
would be entitled for reimbursement of the amount that has been spent on
the treatment of Smt. Raj Mohini Talwar even though the same was availed
of in a private hospital.
13. Accordingly, in view of the settled legal position, the deceased's
medical claims may be processed by the ld. Registrar General of this Court
and the amounts be released to the Petitioner within a period of 8 weeks, in
terms of the applicable rules.
14. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The digitally signed
copy of the order be considered as the certified copy for the purpose of
processing the claims.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2021
dk/T
(corrected & released on 23rd March, 2021)
