Consideration of persons with disabilities for promotion against unreserved vacancies-reg.

No.36035/4/2010-Estt.(Res)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Department of Personnel and Training

North Block, New Delhi

Dated 1st August 2011

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Consideration of persons with disabilities for promotion against unreserved vacancies-reg.

The undersigned is directed to say that representations have been received stating that some Ministries/Departments etc. do not consider the persons with disabilities for promotion to Group 'A’ and Group 'B’ posts, even if such posts are identified suitable for them, on the ground that there is no reservation for persons with disabilities in the matter of promotion to such posts. In this regard, attention is invited to para 6 of this Department’s OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res) dated 29th December, 2005, which provides that a person with disability cannot be denied the right to compete for appointment against an unreserved vacancy in a post identified suitable for persons with disability of the relevant category. It is hereby clarified that if promotions are made to a Group ‘A’ or Group 'B’ post, which is identified suitable for persons with disability of a specific category, the persons with disability of relevant category in feeder grade, if any, shall be considered for promotion to the post by applying the same criterion as applicable to other persons.

sd/-

(Sharad Kumar Srivatava)

Under Secretary to the Govt of India

STATE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO BEAR THE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF EMPOLYEES WHILE IN SERVICE AND ALSO AFTER THEY ARE RETIRED- WHETHER MEMBER OF C.G.H.S. OR NOT- DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

STATE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO BEAR THE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF EMPLOYEES WHILE IN SERVICE AND ALSO AFTER THEY ARE RETIRED - WHETHER A MEMBER OF CGHS OR NOT
DELHI H C GRANTS REIMBURSEMENT WITH 18% INTEREST

1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the  respondents for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner.

2. The issue is no more res Integra as in the case of S K Sharma (supra), this Court clearly held that the  petitioner after getting retired cannot be denied the benefit of the medical reimbursement simply because of the  fact that he did not opt for the said scheme. 

3. In this case also the claim of the  employee was rejected  on the ground that he was not covered under the CGHS Rule not being a part of the scheme but still a retired Central Government employee residing in non-CGHS area can make a CGHS card for himself and his dependent family members from the nearest centre where CGHS is functional. 

4. Further placing reliance on some authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court in the above case took a view that the petitioner cannot be  discriminated against, merely because he is not a member of the CGHS scheme as he was staying in a non-CGHS area. 

5. In this cIt is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights on the pretext that he has not opted to become a member of the scheme or had paid the requisite subscription after having undergone the operation or any other medical treatment. 

6. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the State has a constitutional obligation to bear the medical expenses of Government employees while in service and also after they are retired. 

7. Clearly in the present case by taking a very inhuman approach, these officials have denied the grant of medical reimbursement to the W P (C) No 889/2007 petitioner forcing him to approach this Court. 

8. The respondents did not bother even after the judgment of this Court was brought to their notice and copy of the same was placed by the petitioner along with the present petition.

9. The respondents are directed to pay the said medical claim of the petitioner along with 18% interest from the date of submission of his bill. The said payment shall be made by the respondent within one month from the date of this order. Additional costs of Rs. 10,000/- is also imposed on  the respondents for causing delay in making the said
payment to the petitioner.

[Kishan Chand vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors - Delhi High Court - WP(C) No 889 /2007]