Amendments to existing lawsLegislation Updates

All ministries/ departments/ offices are requested to bring the below-mentioned amendments to the notice of all administrative authorities under their control.

Amendment in Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

Before Amendment

After Amendment
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 13

 

In any other case, a Government servant shall not accept any gift without the sanction of the government, if the value exceeds-

 

i.            Rupees one thousand five hundred in the case of government servants holding any Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ post; and

ii.            Rupees five hundred in the case of government servant holding any Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ posts.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 13

 

In any other case, a Government servant shall not accept any gift without the sanction of the government, if the value exceeds-

 

i.            Rupees five thousand in the case of government servants holding any Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ post; and

ii.            Rupees two hundred in the case of government servant holding any Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ posts

Sub-rule (4) of Rule 13

 

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(2) and (3), a Government servant, being a member of India delegation or otherwise, may receive and retain gifts from foreign dignitaries, if the market value of gifts received on one occasion does not exceed rupees one thousand. In all other cases, the acceptance and retention of such gift shall be regulated by the instructions issued by the government in this regard from time to time.

 

Sub-rule (4) of Rule 13

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(2) and (3), a Government servant, being a member of India delegation or otherwise, may receive and retain gifts from foreign dignitaries in accordance with the provisions of The Foreign Contribution (Acceptance or Retention of Gifts or Presentation) Rules, 2012, as amended from time to time.


Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension

[Dated: 06-08-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Paying heed to the plight of the retired Government Servants who had alleged unfair treatment pertaining to reimbursement of medical claims under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), the bench of R.K. Agrawal and Ashok Bhushan, JJ directed:

  • with regard to the slow and tardy pace of disposal of MRC by the CGHS, all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases.
  • the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle-free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 days.
  • There shall be a timeframe for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. The Court, hence, said that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.

The Court was hearing the matter where, out of the total bills amounting to Rs. 13,84,440, a 70-year-old pensioner was paid only Rs. 5,84,885. Hence, the petitioner was denied Rs. 7,99,555. The State had, on the other hand, contended that the rates charged by the hospitals were exorbitant whereas the rates charged for such facility shall be only at the CGHS rates and that too after following a proper procedure given in the Circulars issued on time to time by the concerned Ministry. The Court, however, noticed that the petitioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions for survival of his life which requirement was above the sanctions and treatment in empanelled hospitals and hence, it directed the reimbursement of the due amount.

The Court said:

“The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. CGHS was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force.”

[Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 370, decided on 13.04.2018]