Retired railway pensioners opting OPD at retirement not entitled to retrospective FMA despite later change; only initial FMA optant gets arrears from retirement, restricted to 3 years prior to prior OA.

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 categories, after 2006. They were working in the categories of Station Superintendent, Khalasi, Gate Keeper, Keyman, Trackman, Loco Pilot, Shunting Master, Cook etc. The common grievance of the applicants is that they are entitled to get FMA from the date of retirement, but that benefit has been illegally denied to them, for which they had approached the Tribunal earlier with O.A.123/2018, which was disposed of by Annexure-A8 order dated 12.03.2019. On the directions issued by the Tribunal in Annexure-A8, the matter was again considered by the Railway Board and by Annexure-A9 order dated 06.05.2020, their plea was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, they have approached this Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure-A9 and for a declaration that since they were residing beyond 2.5 kms from Railway hospital/health unit and are availing OPD facilities only for chronic diseases are entitled for FMA and to direct the respondents to grant them FMA from the dates of commencement of their pension.

2. Applicants had retired from Railway service after 2006. They claim that all of them are residing beyond 2.5 kms from the nearest Railway hospital/health unit and are not availing out patient dispensing facility, OPD facility for short, except for chronic diseases which is the condition for availing FMA. All of them have also subscribed to the Railway Employees Liberalised Health Scheme, RELHS. The applicants submit that at the time of retirement, contrary to the extant Rules, they were made to give an option form which was obsolete and irrational and thus their legitimate claim for FMA was denied to them. Even though they wanted to give an undertaking pursuant to the subsequent changes in policy, that was not accepted and thus they have been denied the benefit of FMA. They satisfy all necessary conditions for availing the benefit and are not enjoying OPD facility except for treatment of chronic diseases, still they are not granted FMA and therefore they reiterate their claim that they are entitled to get FMA from the respective dates of retirement. According to them, they knew about the change as made in the forms of undertaking only in 2017; thereafter they were trying to give fresh options in accordance with the extant Rules, but that were not entertained and that was how they moved O.A.123/2018 along with similarly situated others; this Tribunal was convinced that they are entitled to get such benefits and thus the respondents were directed to consider their case and to take a decision keeping in view the extant regulations of the organisation. However, by Annexure-A9 order their prayer was rejected and that made them to approach this Tribunal again.

3. The respondents have opposed the claim of the applicants. They did not file para-wise reply to the Original Application