Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K. Haripal, Judicial Member
P.M. Ramakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lists retired railway employees as applicants. (Para 1) |
| 2. applicants claim fma entitlement from retirement denied. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents deny fma to relhs opd users. (Para 3) |
| 4. prior dismissal reviewed and oa restored. (Para 4) |
| 5. counsel reiterate claims; fresh options granted recently. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 6. issue: arrears of fma from retirement dates. (Para 8) |
| 7. fma introduced 1997 for non-hospitalisation expenses. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 8. distance criterion 2.5km; obsolete forms used at retirement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 9. most opted opd over low initial fma rates. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 10. relhs opd opt-out required for fma eligibility. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 11. fma attraction grew with rate increases. (Para 18) |
| 12. one-time option change allowed, later unlinked from residence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 13. applicants failed to prove residence; unaware claim unconvincing. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 14. 5th applicant gets fma arrears; others denied. (Para 24) |
ORDER
Applicants, who are former Railway servants, have joined together seeking to grant Fixed Medical Allowance, FMA for short, from the respective dates of their retirement. All of them are retired employees of the Railway service, retired from different c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
