H.C. Chawla v. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

The applicant superannuated as Manager (Legal) from India Tourism Development Corporation Limited w.e.f. 30.6.2001. Having undergone certain surgeries on 21.4.2003 and 17.11.2008, i.e., treatment of cataract and prostate, he sought reimbursement of expenses incurred by him on the surgeries from the Corporation. When the Corporation nixed the claim of reimbursement, he filed the present Original Application praying therein: a) To quash and set-aside the impugned Order dated 23.01.2012 passed by Respondent No.1, based on office note dated 17.08.2011 of Sr. Manager (HR), thereby directing Respondent No.1 to allow reimbursement of medical bills of the applicant.

b) To direct the Respondent No.1 to reimbursement forthwith with the medial claims of the applicant amounting to Rs.45,531.27 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty One & Paisa Twenty Seven Only) along with upto date interest from the date of claim.

c) To pay cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards litigation and mental torture.

d) May pass any such order/directions, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. According to the learned counsel for applicant, once there is a scheme, namely, the ITDC (Retired Employees) Medical Benefit Scheme introduced in the year 2000, i.e., on 24.7.2000, the applicant has to be given the benefit of the same. He made reference to paragraphs 6.1 and 9.3 of the Scheme.

3. On the other hand, in their reply to the Original Application as well as additional affidavits and written submissions filed on 5.2.2013, the respondents avalanches that the Scheme was dependent upon the 60% of 25% of the amount earmarked for welfare activities under ITDC Employees Welfare-cum-Incentive Scheme and since in the year 2001 in terms of the circular dated 21.8.2001 the scheme itself was suspended, the applicant could not have been paid the amount spent by him on his treatment in the year 2003 and 2008.

4. Rejoining the arguments, the learned counsel for applicant submitted that the Corporation is running in profit and the respondents themselves reimbursed the expenses incurred by certain retired employees between 2000 and 2013. He further emphasized that though the medical reimbursement scheme could have been amended and modified but could not have been rescinded.

5. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. Albeit the medical reimbursement scheme, i.e., ITDC (Retired Employees) Medical Benefit Scheme was introduced by the Corporation and the representative of the Trade Union Federations could have no control over the same, but since in terms of the provisions contained in paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme, the funds for the same were to be arranged from the amount earmarked for the welfare activities under ITDC Employees Welfare-cum-Incentive Scheme and for utilization of the funds, the Trade Union Federations were consulted and in consultation with the Trade Union Federations only, the post-retirement medical scheme for the retired employees was kept under suspension, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The minutes dated 20.7.2001 recorded in the meeting of the Office of the General Manager (Personnel) and the representative of the three Trade Union Federations read thus:- The issue pertaining to reimbursement of medical expenses to those employees/officers who have retired from the services has been discussed. The Management representatives informed the Federations that the financial position of ITDC is very critical and it is not possible for us to make the medical payments to those employees who have retired under the Post Retirement Medical Scheme at the cost of the existing employees. Various options were discussed and finally it has been decided that:-

a) The Post Retirement Medical Scheme for the retired employees shall be suspended for one year.

b) The implementation of the Scheme may be review before one year only, if the ITDC shows financial profit before that one year.

c) All pending medical bills of those employees who have retired may be reviewed only after one year.

d) The one year period shall start from 20th July 2001.

6. Nevertheless, it is seen from the reply given to applicant under Right to Information Act that after 2000 medical expenses incurred by certain retired employees were reimbursed. It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties that whether the reimbursement made was of the expenses incurred during the period when the Scheme was under suspension or of the expenses incurred during a different period. It is also not so that the reimbursement scheme itself has been scrapped. The scheme was kept only under suspension and subsequently since no part of the amount earmarked for welfare activities under the ITDC Employees Welfare-cum-Incentive Scheme was allocated for reimbursement of expenses incurred by retired employees on their treatment, the expenses incurred by the applicant on his treatment could not be reimbursed.

7. In the facts and circumstances, the Original Application is disposed of with direction to the respondents to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant on his treatment (ibid) as and when the portion of funds mentioned in paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme are restored. No costs. ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (J) 29th June 2015 /sunil/