Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: (Oral) - This order will dispose of ten writ petitions bearing CWP nos. 26270 of 2015, 10621, 11329, 11488, 11553, 11794, 11809, 11852, 15706 of 2016 and 871 of 2018.

2. We have perused the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of the application filed by the present respondents seeking medical reimbursement at PGIMS/AIMS rates. The said application was disposed of on the basis of the earlier precedents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that directions given by the Tribunal are un-sustainable in view of the fact that there is a clear distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as ‘Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations and others vs. Union of India and others’, reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, ‘State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga’, reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and ‘Union of India and others vs. S.K. Saigal and others’, reported as 2007(1) SCT 286.

4. Respondents on the other hand contend that precedent relied upon by the Tribunal was never challenged by the writ petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereby leading to several other decisions by the Tribunal. Likewise some of these were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP and met with dismissals. It is thus contended that the matter having attained judicial certainty would offer no ground to the writ petitioners to raise any challenge to their claims. It is further contended that the respondents were never given the option of joining the scheme as is now being sought to be asserted before the Court by the writ petitioners and in any eventuality most of the employees are residing in areas where CGHS benefits are not available which force them to opt for fixed medical allowance. Reliance has been placed on Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in case titled as ‘Mohinder Singh vs. Union of India and others’, [2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 19] : reported as 2008(2) SCT 239 wherein this Court while referring to the letter by the Union of India itself had the occasion to comment on an identical controversy. For the purposes of reference same is extracted herebelow:-

10. While concluding the matter, we may also refer, to the Text of M.H.&F.W.O.M No. S- 14025/4/96 M.S dated June 05, 1998, regarding extension of the Rules to pensioners residing in areas not covered by CGHS, which is at page 215 of the Nabhi’s Compendium of Orders. For facility of reference, it is reproduced as under:-

“The undersigned is directed to refer to the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare O.M No. 45/74/97-PP&PW (C ) dated 15.4.1997 on the above subject and to say that it has been decided by the Ministry that the pensioners should not be deprived of medical facilities from the Government in their old age when they require them. This Ministry has, therefore, no objection to the extension of the CS(MA) Rules to the Central Government pensioners residing in non CGHS areas as recommended by the Pay Commission. However, the responsibility of administering the CS (MA) Rules for pensioners cannot be handled by CGHS. It should be administered by the respective Ministries/Departments as in the case of serving employees covered under CS(MA) Rules, 1944. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare would need to have the modalities worked out for the implementation of the rules in consultation with the Ministries/Department prior to the measure being introduced to avoid any hardship to the pensioners. The pensioners could be given a one time option at the time of their retirement for medical coverage under CGHS or under the CS (MA) Rules, 1944. In case of a pensioner opting for CGHS facilities he/she would have to get himself/herself registered in the nearest CGHS city for availing of hospitalization facilities. In s