Retired EPFO employees are entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance regardless of both spouses being pensioners.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

An identical relief viz., grant of Fixed Medical Allowance is prayed for in these 3 Original Applications, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

The facts leading to the filing of these applications are as follows:

The applicants, retired employees of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), became entitled to a Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) of Rs.2,000/- per month after superannuation. However, this benefit was denied to them on the ground that their spouses were also EPFO pensioners. A similar issue had earlier been raised before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 693 of 2014, where the Tribunal quashed the denial of FMA and directed that the benefit be extended to the applicants. The order was later upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 25/2017 by order, dated 12.01.2018. Following this precedent, the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal, in OA No. 1582 of2022 & batch, also allowed a similar set of cases on 05.10.2023, relying on the Ernakulam Bench Decision as affirmed by the Kerala High Court. Despite these rulings, when the present applicants sought the same relief, the 1st respondent issued a common order denying the FMA benefit to retirees whose spouses are also pensioners without referring to the above judicial precedents. Consequently, the applicants have filed the present Original Applications seeking extension of the FMA benefit to them as well.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, pursuant to the orders, dated 26.11.2015 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 693/2014 as confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 25/2017 dated 12.01.2018, the respondents’ continued refusal to sanction the Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) is wholly illegal. It was contended that the 1st respondent is not justified in reiterating the same grounds already rejected by judicial forums, thereby disputing the applicants’ lawful entitlement. He further argued that the EPFO, being a PAN-India organisation, cannot adopt discriminatory practices in the treatment of its employees, and that the impugned orders rejecting the applicants’ claims are arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law.

4. The learned counsel also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in several judgments, held that the Government, as a model employer, must treat all similarly placed employees alike, particularly in matters relating to pay, allowances, and benefits, without compelling them to initiate litigation for rightful entitlements. In the present case, the applicants are identically situated to those who were granted FMA pursuant to the aforesaid orders, and hence, they are entitled to the same benefit. It was further contended that the Fixed Medical Allowance is intended for the health and welfare of retired employees, and denying such benefit merely because both spouses are pensioners of the same department is irrational, unjustified, and devoid of any reasonable classification. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the reliefs sought in the present Original Applications be granted.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and placed reliance on the reply statement. She submitted that, as per the letter, dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure R-1) issued by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, when two or more members of the same family are working in the EPFO, only one of them is