The High Court · 2025

2. 9ri Y. Adinarayana, S/o: Shri Y. Sanjeevaiah, aged about 60 years, Engineering Assiqlant ([etd.), Akashvani (Al[ In-dia Radio), Hyderabao Address- 1-2-1\ F_lqt- 101, [vohini [\rlansioh, Gagan Mahdi Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad - 500029 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or Order or Direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 07tO8t2O25 passed by the Honorable Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A. No. 021/ 236 t2O22 filed by Respondent No.2, herein, quash and set aside the same as it is contrary to law and perverse- and Pending disposal of this Writ Petition stay the operation and implementation of the order dated 07togt2o2s. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 07-08-2025 passed in OA No O21123612022 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, the 1st Respondent herein, in the interest of justice. Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for the Respondents: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER IN HIGH FOR STATE OF AT ITYDERABAD THE THE CHIEF SRI KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIT'DDIN WRIT PETITION No. 37420 of 2o.25 Dated: 0,8.12.2025. Between: Union of India, Representing by the secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of lnformation & Broadcasting, Prasar Bharati, New Delhi, and. another. ' .:.Petitioners The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, HACA Bhavan, HYderabad, Represented by its Registrar, and another. ...Respondents ORDER: sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy solicitor General of India, appears for the petitioners.

2. Union of India and another have preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 07 -OB'2O25 passed in 2 ;^: oA/o2l/2s6/2022 by the rearned centrar Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as, ,,the Tribunal'").

3. The case relates to medica-l reimbursement to respondent No.2 - employee of petitioner No.2, who was the applicant before the learned Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the empl0yee"). During covlD-1g, in an emergency condition he was admitted as an in-patient with un_ controlled DM, HTN, Bronchiar Asthma etc., in Krishna Institute of Medicar sciences (KIM.), secunderabad. Fortunately, he survived and was discharged on o''o4.2o2t. His wife arso suffered high degree of covlD_ 19 RTPCR positive and was treated for severe medical complications in the s€une hospitar. she also survived and was discharged on 2s-o4.2o2L. The only mistake that the empl0yee did was not to inform the department while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The hospital undisputedly was an empane,ed hospitar in respect of CGHS beneficiaries. The bills of Rs.2 7,3g,g21 / - were reimbursed only to the extent of Rs.3,47,62g/_ by / 3 i1 petitioner No.2 by the proceedings dated 2o.12.2O2L. The balance claim of Rs. 17,92,143/- was rejected. with this grievance, the employee approached the learned Tribunal. The matter was argued on merits. I,earned Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of state of Karnataka v. R.vivekananda swamyr, shiva Kant Jha v. union of India (w.P (civil) No.69412015, dated 13.04.2018) and other decisions, including the instructions dated 15.06.2020 of the Government of Telangana, which provided ceiling on prices for treatment of covlD- 19 in private and empanelled hospitals. The hospital has ignored the Government Order and overcharged" the employee. Learned Tribunal, ofl consid.eration of the materials on record in depth, observed that the employer should not have restricted the reimbursement claimed by the employee as raised by the hospital, which is empanelled with the State Government authorities. It also observed that the employer can take action against the hospital for overcharglng the CGHS beneficiaries rather than punishing its own employees by '(zooa) 5 scc 328 I, 4 7". not sanctic,ning the amount claimed, since the treatment was alread',r obtained and payment had already been made by the employee. Learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to reconsider and settle the claim of the employee with full reimbursement within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

4. on behalf of the petitioners, learned Deputy soricitor General of India submits that as per office Memorandum dated 13.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of I{ealth and Family welfare, Government of India, CGHS empanelled hospitals cannot refuse to provide treatment to bona fide beneficiaries in emergency cases and other eligible categories of beneficiaries on credit basis vvithout valid ground, as it would attract disqualification. They would also not refuse admission or demand an advance payment r from the cGHS beneficiaries or their family members and would provide credit facitities to the patients. He has also referred to the office Memorandum dated 09.11.20LT which relates to the procedure for treatment at private hospitals empanelled under CGHS/central Services 5 (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that the reimbursement claimed by the employee was above the ceiling prescribed for CGHS beneficiaries while undergoing treatment in the empanelled hospitals. The employee has not informed the department while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The authorities are bound by the prevailing office memoranda as regards the reimbursement of medical expenses. Therefore, the learned Tribunal's order suffers from errors.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of tndia appeaiing for the petitioners.

6. The learned Tribunal has taken note of both G.O.Rt.No.248, dated 15.06.2020, and the fact that though the employee was a CGHS beneficiary, both he and his wife, had not informed the department about their hospitalisation and treatment in KIMS Hospital, r ( Secunderabad. The learned Tribunal, however, was of the view that the employee and his wife were admitted in emergency situation and no one was there who could 6 inform the, department about their hospitalisation and treatment. In such circumsta.nces, the denial of reimbursenrent of medical expenses by the department instead of taking action against the hospital u,hich has overcharged the GGHS beneficiaries, is not an approach expected by the employer.

7. covlD- 19 presented such grave situation where human liver; were lost without any treatment in a matter of few days. In the present case, the employee and his wife both forturately survived. Despite being a cGHS beneficiary, if the hospital charged above the ceiling rates, the employer could proceed against the hospital in question instead of denying the reimbursement to the employee, who had settled the claim with the hospital on being discharged.

8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any \ \ reason to interfere in the impugned order.

9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shail be no order as to costs. 7 Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPY/ To,

1. One CC to Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor 2. Two CD CoPies L'w SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ANT REGISTRAR OFFICER I of lndia IOPUC] HIGH COURT DATED:08/1 212025 3 r ilf- e i..i- o v t it rLt ?il2t * .r ./, 'l^ ,tt . ORDER WP.No.37420 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "r"6"0 . ,,, ! : ! : i i I t