Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, JJ.
National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
Radhey Shyam Mathur and Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24046 of 2018
Decided On : 21-05-2019
For the Appellant : Anurag Agarwal
For the Respondent: P.N. Jatti, A.B. Jatti and B.K. Jatti
Retired employees of an autonomous body, who are not covered by CGHS, are entitled to fixed medical allowance as per Government Resolution dated 30.09.1997 and Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997.
Headnote:
FIXED MEDICAL ALLOWANCE - PENSIONERS - CCS (PENSION) RULES, 1972 - CENTRAL SERVICES (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE) RULES, 1944 - GOVERNMENT'S RESOLUTION DATED 30.09.1997 - OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 19.12.1997 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, challenged the Tribunal's decision to allow fixed medical allowance to respondents, retired employees of the Institute, as per Government Resolution dated 30.09.1997 and Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the respondents, retired employees of the Institute, were entitled to fixed medical allowance as they were not covered by CGHS and the provision disentitling them from the allowance was declared unconstitutional by the Karnataka High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether retired employees of the Institute were entitled to fixed medical allowance? 2. Whether the provision disentitling retired employees from fixed medical allowance was unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal relied on the Government's Resolution dated 30.09.1997, which provided fixed medical allowance to pensioners residing in areas not covered by CGHS. 2. The Tribunal also relied on the Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997, which stated that payment of medical allowance was counted as part of 'Pension and other Retirement Benefits'. 3. The Tribunal further noted that the provision disentitling retired employees from fixed medical allowance was declared unconstitutional by the Karnataka High Court in A.B. Colaco S/o. Late H.P.G. Colaco v. Coffee Board.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Institute, upholding the Tribunal's decision to allow fixed medical allowance to the respondents.
JUDGMENT :
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
1. Since all these writ petitions arise out of common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. All these writ petitions seek to challenge common judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby original applications filed by the respondents-applicants have been allowed and the petitioner-National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur has been directed to allow Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month to the respondents-applicants in terms of the Government's Resolution dated 30.09.1997 and Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997, with the arrears, from the date of filing of the original applications..
3. For the purpose of convenience, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24046/2018, National Institute of Ayurveda v. Radhey Shyam Mathur is taken as leading case and facts of that case are being taken as the basis to decide present matters.
4. Respondent No. 1-Radhey Shyam Mathur filed an Original Application before the Tribunal inter alia claiming Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month as per the aforementioned Resolution dated 30.09.1997 and Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997 and reimbursement for the indoor treatment. Respondent No. 1 retired as the employee of the National Institute of Ayurveda. The services. rendered by him have been treated as the services of the Central Government employees. The Government of India vide order No. 27011/1/182-ISM dated 25.08.1983 approved the introduction and implementation of pension-cum-GPF-cum-Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme including family pension, as contained in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules of 1972'), as amended from time-to-time. This order came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1983. The order was issued with concurrence of the Finance Division vide Dy. No. 1485-Finance II dated 23.04.1983. The Government of India by its resolution sanctioned Fixed Medical Allowance to Central Government Pensioners, who were drawing pension as per the Rules of 1972 and were not covered by CGHS or any other corresponding health scheme. This was allowed as per the GOI P&W Resolution No. 45/86/97-P and G.I. Dept. of Pen. & Pen. Welfare, O.M. No. 45/57/97-P and PW (c) dated 19.12.1997. These orders were further clarified vide order dated 30.12.1998.
5. Case of Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that he at the time of retirement was governed by the Rules of 1972 and was not covered by CGHS or any other corresponding health scheme. He was therefore entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. Respondent No. 1 submitted representation to the petitioner on 28.06.2014. When the petitioner failed to remedy grievance of Respondent No. 1, he filed Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2015 directed the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Department of AYUSH, New Delhi to decide his representation within three months. Respondent No. 1 accordingly submitted representation on 25.01.2015. This representation was rejected by the petitioner vide order dated 04:03.2015. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 again approached the Tribunal by filing another Original Application. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has allowed the original application filed by Respondent No. 1 with the direction, as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this writ petition.
6. Mr. Anurag Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal as erred in law in allowing the Original Applications filed by the respondents-applicant even though it has in the same judgment held that the petitioner is an autonomous body and is governed by its own constitution and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the decisions taken by its governing body. The Tribunal erred in law in taking order dated 25.08.1983 on record at the time of arguments without providing copy of thereof
