Madras High Court
The Chief General Manager vs G.Kanagam on 10 October, 2022
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
1.The Chief General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Chennai Telephones.
2.The Divisional Engineer,
MRS Section, Chennai Telephones,
Kellys, Chennai. .. Petitioners
vs
1.G.Kanagam
2.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai – 104. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue writ of certiorari and to call for the records relating to
the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the second respondent in
O.A.No.310/00697/2019 and quash the same in so far as the portion
of the middle of the order at para 19 is concerned i.e.,: “to consider
the claim of the applicant keeping in view the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha”.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar
ORDER
(Made by PARESH UPADHYAY.,J)
1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated
01.06.2022 recorded on Original Application No. 697 of 2019 by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. This petition is by the
employer - BSNL Chennai.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner employer has
submitted that, while disposing of the Original Application filed by the
widow of an employee of BSNL, the Tribunal gave direction to decide
the claim regarding medical reimbursements (qua the deceased
employee) keeping in view the observations and spirit of the decision
of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union
of India (in Writ Petition No.694/2015 dated 13.04.2018). It is
submitted that, the department is aggrieved only by the observations
of the Tribunal, directing the petitioner to decide the claim of the
widow of the deceased employee keeping in view the observations of
the Supreme Court. It is submitted that, if these observations are
deleted from the order under challenge, the department would be able
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
to pass appropriate order with reasons. It is submitted that this
petition be entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner
authorities and having considered the material on record, more
particularly keeping in view the thrust of the submissions, we find that,
the insistence on the part of the petitioner authorities to delete the
observations by the Tribunal, referring to the spirit of the decision of
the Supreme Court of India and also the contention that the
department is ready to pass reasoned order thereafter, only leads to
the conclusion that the department is bent upon to reject the claim of
the widow of the deceased employee, however in view of the
observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal that rejection
would become difficult. The said rejection need not be facilitated by
any order in this writ petition.
4. We further find that, the employee had suffered head
injury at night, his wife (the present respondent) had taken him to the
nearest hospital, thereafter he was shifted to the hospital as per the
medical advice where he succumbed to his injury and in the said
process, the wife has suffered expenses of Rs.7,76,854/-, however the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
department has restricted the claim only to Rs.1,44,771/-, which was
the cause of action for the said widow to approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has, instead of giving positive
direction, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India and
directed that appropriate orders be passed, keeping in view of the said
judgment. We find that, this was the case where even positive
direction could have been issued, however the Tribunal has left it to
the authorities to do needful, keeping in view the said judgment of the
Supreme Court. We find that, such an order can not be said to be an
error, which may call for any interference in the writ petition. We also
find that, if the circumstances warrants medical reimbursements are
ordered and this is the case, where the claim ought not to have been
denied. Some clerical issues are also attempted to be brought before
us, however that would not change the merits of the matter and
therefore the same need not be and are not gone into.
5. The direction by the Tribunal, in the facts of the case,
according to us, can not be said to be an error. This petition needs to
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
6. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is
dismissed. No costs. W.M.P.No.25695 of 2022 would not survive.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
10.10.2022
Index:No
ssm/11
To
The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai – 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssm
W.P.No.26647 of 2022
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
