Applicant, a retired SSRM was working in the Postal Department under the respondents. He retired from service on 28-2-2005. On 22-9-2007 he suffered severe heart attack and had to undergo bye-pass surgery in a private hospital, incurring a huge expense of Rs.1,68,000/-. He submitted Annexure-A/1 representation dated 27-6-2013 requesting for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. The respondents rejected the claim vide Annexure-A communication dated 05-7-2013. Hence he has approached this Tribunal for the following reliefs: A. The Honble Tribunal be pleased to declare the decision of respondents dated 5.7.2013 to deny medical reimbursement to the applicant as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of Art 14 & 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the order at Annex.A and direct respondents to reimburse the medical bills of applicant with 18% interest. B. Be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the amount of medical reimbursement to the applicant immediately and declare that said amount is illegally withheld by the respondents and therefore, direct respondents to reimburse the amount of medical expenses to the applicant with 18% interest and direct respondent no.1 to recover the interest from erring officer. C. Any other relief to which the Hon. Tribunal deems fit and proper in interest of justice.
2. The respondents filed a reply contesting the claim of the applicant mainly on the ground of delay. The respondents pointed out that the first ever request for medical reimbursement was made by the applicant only on 27-6-2013 after a lapse of 6 years from his operation which took place on 22-9-2007. The OA was filed in the month of 2013 and hence there is a delay of more than five years in filing the OA. Prior to that the applicant had never submitted the medical bills amounting to Rs.1,68,000/- to the respondents for reimbursement. As per the Central Service (MA) Rules, 1984, applicant is not entitled to reimbursement of medical claim as he is a retired employee. Respondents pray for dismissing the OA.
3. Heard Mr.P.H.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. At the outset of his arguments Mr.Pathak submitted that his challenge is on Annexure-A communication. Annexure-A reads as follows: DEPARTMENT OF POSTS : INDIA O/o POSTMASTER GENERAL, VADODARA REGION, VADODARA-02. Shri M.G.Ninama A-8 Ruturaj Society Nr. Kasturbanagar (By Regd.) New Sama road Vadodara-390024 No : A&P/M.R/Corr/Pensioner/13 dated at Vadodara-2 the 05-07-2013 Sub: Regarding reimbursement of medical bill in respect of Shri M.G.Ninama for undergoing bye pass heart surgery at Baroda Heart institute and research centre Vadodara. With reference to your letter on the above cited subject it is to intimate that as per Rule No.2 Note 2(iv) of Central Service (MA) Rules retired Government officials are not covered under said rule and as per Circle office instructions other cases are not covered by supreme court judgment may not be consider. Medical bill are returned here with. Encl.: As above. Sd/- For Postmaster General Vadodara Region, Vadodara-02. According to Mr.Pathak, Annexure-A is not a speaking order and the same has been issued with non-application of mind and hence it is tainted with arbitrariness. Mr.Joy Mathew on the other hand, has brought the highly belated nature of this claim to a sharp focus. Referring to the pleadings in the OA Mr.Mathew pointed out that the applicant had in fact waited this long to file this OA in anticipation of a favourable order from the Apex Court on similar claims made by other retired employees. Mr.Mathew submitted that the applicant decided to file this OA only after the Honble Apex Court dismissing the SLP Nos.10660-10661/2005. The aforesaid SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court in limine. It was filed against the order of the Honble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.3843 of 2004 which arose from the decision of this Tribunal in OA/205/2003 allowing the medical claim of a retired postal employee.
4. Referring to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353 Mr.Pathak submitted that the State which represents a collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status and hence the delay in this matter should be condoned. He further submitted that as he is banking on Annexure-A order dated 05-7-2013 the OA has been filed within time.
5. On perusal of records it can be seen that the applicant both in the OA as well as in the rejoinder filed by him has clearly stated that he has been waiting for the outcome of the similarly situated cases filed by the retired employee for claiming reimbursement of medical expenses and that on finding that the aforesaid SLP was dismissed by the apex court he sent Annexure-A/1 representation to the respondents citing the decision of the apex court. He has also annexed a list of pensioners who received reimbursement of medical bills as per orders of the Supreme Court of India. Annexure-A/1 representation was filed by the applicant on 27-6-2013. It appears from the above conduct that the applicant was waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court on the matter and that till then he was not sure whether his claim would be acceded to by the respondents.
6. This Tribunal is not inclined to approve the aforesaid conduct of the applicant because like the other retired persons who had secured orders from this Tribunal, he also could have approached this Tribunal immediately if he had preferred his claim for reimbursement and if the same was rejected. The applicant had never presented his claim for medical reimbursement soon after he incurred the medical expenses for treatment of his heart ailments. Applicant admits that he did not present the claim for reimbursement of his medical bills as he was aware that the respondents had been rejecting similar claims of other retired employees. He made the first ever representation i.e. Annexure-A only on 27-6-2013, nearly 6 years after incurring the medical expenses. Therefore this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant was not vigilant enough to prosecute his claims.
7. It is a well settled principle of law that vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the laws help who are only vigilant and not those who sleep upon their rights). In S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10, a seven judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India had dealt with the limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In that case the apex court observed that the very purpose of enacting Administrative Tribunal is for speedy disposal of the service matters and hence the time-limit fixed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot be enlarged. Recently in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh 2013(6) SLR 629 (SC) it was held by the apex court that a mere submission of representation to the authority does not arrest time. In that case the Apex Court observed that a dead cause of action cannot rise up like a phoenix. It is also a principle in law that dura lex sed lex (law is hard, but it is the law). The time limit prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act being a trite law, this Tribunal is not inclined to condone the conscious and willful delay of about six years occurred to the applicant in filing this OA. The mere filing of Annexure-A/1 representation after a long lapse of nearly 6 years and the resulting impugned Annexure-A communication will not arrest the time or revive the cause of action which in fact had arisen on 22-9-2007.
8. The beneficial results obtained in other cases of similarly situated pensioners can be enjoyed only by the applicants in those cases. Such benefits may not by itself become a norm for all pensioners and will not enure any benefit to the applicant unless he also had invoked his right within the time prescribed by law. The applicant was not vigilant in seeking remedies in relation to his grievance at the appropriate time. He has wasted his precious time speculating on a favourable order from the apex court in the cases filed by others so that he could make his claim before the respondents. Such a speculative conduct cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. Passage of time of nearly six years after the applicant incurred medical expenses has made his claim for reimbursement a stale claim. In the circumstance, this Tribunal finds no merit in the present application. MA/35/2014 for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstance, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs. (U.Sarathchandran) Member(J) OA/348/2013