The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of retired Central Government employees to reimbursement of medical expenses as indoor patients, and the obligation of the Central Government to consider extending medical facilities to retired employees residing in areas not covered by CGHS.

P.K. Misra, J.

1. In all these writ petitions, the question regarding availability of medical facilities to the retired employees of the Central Government, either under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the CS (MA) Rules) or the Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "the CGHS) and issuance of Central Government Health Scheme Card for availing such facilities, is the core issue. The various Original Applications were filed by different retired employees of the Central Government claiming reimbursement of medical expenses/benefit of medical facilities. For convenience, the Central Administrative Tribunal, which decided various applications in favour of the retired employees, is referred to hereinafter as “the Tribunal” and the retired employees, who were applicants before the Tribunal, are referred to as "the applicant".

2. The basic facts and the basic questions involved in all these writ petitions are similar. The main orders of the Tribunal, on the basis of which subsequent orders have been passed are essentially contained in O.A.No.194 of 2001 and O.A.No.619 of 2002, which had been filed by the retired employees of the Central Government claiming medical reimbursement either on the basis of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 or the CGHS.

3. The applicant in O.A.No.194 of 2001 had retired from the Department of Telecommunication (formerly a part of Postal and Telegraph Department). During his service, he was getting the benefit of medical reimbursement as contemplated in CS (MA) Rules. Since he was posted at places which were not covered under CGHS during his service, he was not a member of the CGHS and after his retirement he was getting a medical allowance of Rs.100 per month as per Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, vide No.F.No.45/57/97-P & PW (C), dated 112. 1997. He had to undergo a bye-pass heart surgery in Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur. He claimed reimbursement of the medical expenditure in connection with such treatment. Since no reply was received, he filed O.A.No.194 of 2001.

3. 1 The stand taken by the Department in such case was to the effect that the retired employee was not entitled to the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, the applicant was not a member of the CGHS and was only getting Rs.100/- per month as medical allowance and was not entitled to any reimbursement for indoor treatment. The Tribunal, relying upon the Office Memorandums dated 112. 1997 and 6. 1998, directed the Department to scrutinise under CS (MA) Rules, the claim made by the applicant for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him. The Tribunal, however, refused the claim of the applicant regarding payment of interest.

3. 2. W.P.No.8822 of 2002 has been filed by such applicant challenging the order of the Tribunal relating to rejection of the claim for interest. Subsequently, the Union of India has filed W.P.No.32770 of 2004 challenging the direction of the Tribunal regarding reimbursement.

4. Similar claims by the retired employees for reimbursement of medical expenses as indoor patients were the subject matter of litigation in the subsequent Original Applications filed by such retired employees. Such Original Applications have been allowed by the Tribunal by following the order dated 211. 2001 in O.A.No.194 of 2001 and such orders are the subject matter of challenge in W.P.Nos.28587, 32770, 34081, 34143, 34510, 37025 of 2004, 1713, 10677 of 2005 and 9719 of 2007 filed at the instance of the Union of India.

5. O.A.No.619 of 2002, the order wherein is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.663 of 2003, was filed by a retired employee belonging to Postal and Telegraph Department. Even though he wanted to avail the benefit of CGHS, his request was not considered on the ground that he had retired at Trichy, where such claim has not been extended. The Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by referring to the order pa