Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Mr. Amit Sinha, Ms. Nidhi Singh and Ms v. BANARSI DASS

Judgment

1. This writ petition emanates from order dated 5 October 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 1435/2019. The respondent was the applicant in the OA. The respondent moved the Tribunal against the rejection, by the petitioners, of his prayer for medical reimbursement of the treatment undertaken by his wife in 2010 and 2014.

2. We do not intend to enter into the specifics of the dispute, as we are remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration, the impugned order being effectively non-speaking in nature. 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6800/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.03.2025 15:38:09

3. The Tribunal has noted, from paras 2.1 to 2.11, the facts of the

case and the rival contentions of the parties. Among the contentions that has been noticed by the Tribunal is the contention of the petitioners, as the respondent before the Tribunal, that the claims of the applicant before the Tribunal were barred by time.

4. There is, however, no finding by the Tribunal on any of the submissions advanced by the parties. The Tribunal has merely reproduced an earlier order passed by it in OA 2277/2018 and has proceeded to allow the respondent’s OA on the ground that it could not take a different view.

5. Before us, Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised various contentions. Among them is the contention that the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha v UOI2, which was relied upon by the Tribunal in its judgment in OA 2277/2018 (on which the impugned judgment is founded) was contrary to the earlier decision of a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Ram Lubhaya Bagga3.

6. Mr. Sinha has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Mohan Lal Jindal4, State of Rajasthan v Mahesh Kumar Sharma5 and the judgment of a Division