Brief facts of the applicants case are as follows: 1.1 The applicant is a retired Government employee. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2007. While in service, he was a member of the CGHS. He states that his wife was diagnosed as suffering from Dilet & Millets e plum Tusworking. On 26.8.2001 he took her to Kapoor Medical Centre under critical condition to save her life. After being attended by Dr.Subash Tyagi and being administered life saving drugs, she recovered from her ailment and was discharged on 26.8.2001. He incurred Rs.10,410/- for medical treatment of his wife towards costs of medicines and tests, etc. He submitted his medical claim for Rs.10,410/-. The respondent-Department, vide memo dated 16.6.2004, sanctioned Rs.363/-, instead of Rs.10,410/-. The said amount of Rs.363/- was not received by him. 1.2 On 25.3.2006 his wife again suffered from Type II Diabetes. She was taken to Dr. Subash Tyagi for emergency treatment. This time, he claimed to have incurred an expenditure of Rs.14,330/- and accordingly submitted his medical claim for reimbursement of the said amount of expenditure. 1.3 It is stated by the applicant that the place of his residence was situated in Nand Nagri area which was not covered by CGHS, nor was any Authorized Medical Attendant appointed by the Department for the area. 1.4 As the respondent-Department failed to make payment of his aforesaid two medical claims, the applicant made a representation dated 11.5.2008 to the Commissioner, Delhi Police. There being no response, he again submitted a representation dated 8.12.2010 to the Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs, who, vide his letter dated 20.12.2010, forwarded the same to the Commissioner, Delhi Police. 1.5 The respondent-Department, vide letter dated 10.2.2011 (Annexure X), intimated the applicant that his first medical claim had already been settled in accordance with CCS (MA) Rules. As regards the medical claim submitted by him after retirement, he was informed that medical claim of retired police personnel is dealt by the CGHS/HQ, Bikaner House, New Delhi. 1.6 Thereafter, the applicant made further representations dated 6.7.2012 and 30.5.2013 to the respondents and got certain information from them under the RTI Act. 1.7 As his aforesaid two medical claims were not reimbursed in his favour, the applicant filed the present O.A. on 20.1.2014 seeking the following reliefs: (i) To reimburse medical expenses incurred in emergency of Rs.10,410/- in the first case and Rs.14,330/- in the second case. (Total being Rs.24,740/-).

(ii) To award interest to the applicant for the delay caused by the respondents.

(iii) To impose exemplary cost on respondents for the delay and harassments to the applicant. In support of his prayer, the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Honble High Court in Kishan Chand v. Govt. of NCT & others, W.P. ( C ) No. 889 of 2007, decided on 12.3.2010.

2. Opposing the O.A. the respondents have filed two separate counter replies. 2.1 In the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it is, inter alia, stated that cause of action, if any, arose in the year 2001-2003, and that as the residence of the applicant was not in the area covered by the CGHS, he was to obtain medical treatment from any hospital other than CGHS dispensary. 2.2 In the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it is stated that the applicant was residing in a non-CGHS covered area and hence was entitled to medical facilities from Authorized Medical Attendant under CS (MA) Rules, 1944.

3. In his rejoinder reply, the applicant has stated that although he was paying CGHS contribution, he was not provided CGHS facilities. As he was paying contribution to CGHS, he was entitled for reimbursement of expenses incurred by him for medical treatment. It was the duty of the respondents to provide medical facilities or reimbursement of expenses incurred for medical treatment.

4. The applicant has filed MA No.2326 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay, if any, in filing of the O.A. It is stated by the applicant that he had submitted medical bills for Rs.10, 410.15 on 19.6.2002 and for Rs.14,330/- on 20.7.2007 respectively. Thereafter, he was continuously making correspondence with his Department regarding reimbursement of medical charges and was pursuing the matter till 2013. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the delay in filing of the O.A. in 2014 is condoned and the reliefs claimed by him in he O.A. are granted by the Tribunal. There is no impediment either in law or equity to grant the reliefs prayed for by him in the O.A.

5. I have carefully perused the records and have heard the applicant in person and Ms. Ritika Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. Admittedly, the applicant submitted his first medical claim for Rs.10,410.15 on 19.6.2002 and second medical claim for Rs.14,330/- on 20.7.2007. As regards his first medical claim of Rs.10,410.15, along with his O.A., the applicant has filed copy of memo dated 16.6.2004 issued by respondent no.1 sanctioning Rs.363/-. Thus, it is clear that respondent no.1 settled the applicants first medical claim of Rs.10,410.15 by allowing and sanctioning Rs.363/- only and by disallowing reimbursement of the balance amount of the said claim, vide sanction memo dated 16.6.2004. Although the applicant claimed that the said amount of Rs.363/- was not received by him, yet he has not stated that the fact of sanction of Rs.363/- was not in his knowledge. Therefore, as regards denial of reimbursement of full amount of medical claim of Rs.10,410/-, the cause of action arose on 16.6.2004 and he should have approached the Tribunal within the period of limitation prescribed under the A.T.Act. As regards his second medical claim of Rs.14,330/- submitted on 20.7.2007, if the respondent-Department did not settle the same within a reasonable period, the applicant ought to have approached the Tribunal within the period of limitation prescribed under the A.T.Act. It is trite law that making representations and correspondences from time to time with the Department, after the cause of action arose, is not sufficient explanation for the delay in approaching Court/Tribunal and does not save limitation or extend the period of limitation prescribed under the statute. In view of this, MA No.2326 of 2015 is rejected. In the circumstances, the O.A. filed by the applicant in 2014 seeking the reliefs, as aforesaid, being barred by delay and laches is liable to be rejected.

7. It is the admitted position between the parties that at the relevant point of time the applicant was residing in an area not covered by CGHS, and that although he was a member of CGHS, he was entitled to medical facilities under the CS (MA) Rules, 1944. Under the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, where CGHS facilities are not provided, a Government employee is entitled, free of charge, to medical attendance by the Authorized Medical Attendant appointed by the concerned Department. This facility is available for the employee and his family. Rule 2 of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, reads thus:  2. In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:- (a) Authorized Medical Attendant means  (A) in respect of any Government servant or any Group or Groups of Government servants in any station, a Medical Officer, whether or not under the employ of the Central Government, appointed by 

(i) the Department of Health of the Government of India, where such persons are under the employ of that Department, or

(ii) any other Department of the Government of India, in relation to persons under the employ of that Department, or

(iii) any authority which is declared by the President, under sub-rule(10) of Rule 2 of the Supplementary Rules, to be Head of a Department, in relation to persons under the employ of that authority, or

(iv) the Chairman of the Central Government Employees Welfare Coordination Committee at station where such Committees are functioning, in relation to the Central Government employees at that station: Provided that where no Medical Officer in the employ of a State Government or the Administrator of a Union Territory shall be appointed as an Authorized Medical Attendant except after consultation with the Government or the Administrator of that Union Territory. (B) Where no Medical Officer is appointed as aforesaid 

(i) in respect of a Government servant who belongs to a Central Service, Group A, or whose pay is not less than Rs.2,500/- per mensem, the Principal Medical officer of the District appointed by the Government to attend its officers in the District;

(ii) in respect of a Government servant not belonging to a Central Service, Group A, whose pay is less than Rs.2,500/- but more than Rs.1,200/- per mensem, an Assistant Surgeon, Grade I (medical Graduate), or other Medical Officer, appointed by the Government to attend its officers in the station;

(iii) in respect of any other Government servant, an Assistant Surgeon, Grade II (Medical Licentiate), or where he is not available, an Assistant Surgeon, Grade I (Medical Graduate), similarly appointed. xx xx It is the contention of the applicant that as no Authorized Medical Attendant was appointed by the respondent-Department for the area where he was residing, his wife was treated by Dr.Subash Tyagi and he was entitled for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him for such medical treatment of his wife in emergency. I do not find any substance in the contention of the applicant. If no Authorized Medical Attendant was appointed under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 for the area where he was residing, the applicant ought to have approached the concerned Medical Officers who were Authorized Medical Attendants for him in terms of Rule 2(a)(B) of the said Rules for medical treatment of his wife. Besides, he ought to have taken her wife to any Government hospital, or any private hospital approved by the Government under the CGHS/CS(MA)Rules, 1944. It is not the case of the applicant that no Authorized Medical Attendant in terms of Rule 2(a)(B) of the CS (MA)Rules, 1944, was available in or near the area where he was residing at the relevant point of time. It is also not the case of the applicant no Government Hospital or private hospital approved under the CGHS/CS(MA)Rules, 1944, was available in or near the area where he was residing at the relevant point of time. As per Appendix VIII(REIMBURSEMENT IN RELAXATION OF RULES IN EMERGENT CASES) to the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, in emergent cases involving accidents, serious nature of disease, etc., the person on the spot may use his discretion for taking the patent for treatment in a private hospital in case no Government or recognized hospital is available nearer than the private hospital, and reimbursement of expenses incurred on treatment obtained from private hospital is admissible. There is no provision in the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, that a Government employee can claim reimbursement of expenditure incurred by him for treatment by any private medical practitioner who is not appointed as Authorized Medical Attendant under Rule 2(a)(A) of the said Rules. This apart, it transpires from the applicants first medical claim of Rs.10,410.15 that his wife obtained medical treatment from Dr.Subash Tyagi, and he purchased medicines, etc., on various dates during the period from 26.8.2001 to 12.5.2002. From the applicants second medical claim of Rs.14,330/-, it appears that his wife obtained treatment from Dr.Subash Tyagi, and he purchased medicines, etc., on various dates during the period from 25.8.2006 to 31.5.2007. Considering the nature of disease(s) the applicants wife suffered from and the period of treatment by Dr.Subash Tyagi, no one will be persuaded by the submission of the applicant that his wife required urgent medical treatment to save her life all the times during the aforesaid period and hence the medical expenses incurred by him for such treatment was admissible to him. In the absence of any provision in the CS (MA) Rules or CGHS that a Government employee is entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred by him for obtaining medical treatment from private medical practitioner, who is not appointed as Authorized Medical Attendant, I do not find any scope for interference in the matter.

8. In Kishan Chand v. Govt. of NCT & others, W.P. ( C ) No. 889 of 2007, decided on 12.3.2010, the petitioner got a heart attack and was admitted to Amar Leela Hospital, Janakpuri, New Delhi, on 2.4.2005 and was discharged on 7.4.2005. He again suffered from severe chest pain and breathlessness and was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and underwent a bypass surgery on 9.4.2005. Considering the serious nature of disease the petitioner suffered from and the bypass heart surgery undergone by him, the Honble High Court of Delhi held that by taking a very inhuman approach, the respondents denied reimbursement of medical expenses to the applicant. Accordingly, their Lordships directed the respondent-Department to reimburse the medical expenses to the petitioner. Therefore, I find that the decision in Kishan Chands case (supra) being distinguishable on facts does not come to the aid of the applicant.

9. In the light of the above discussions, I hold that the O.A., besides being hit by doctrine of delay and laches, is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs. (RAJ VIR SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER