SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 853

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sadasivan Nair R – Appellant
Versus
Health And Family Welfare – Respondent
O.A./208/2025



##PAGE1##

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

ERNAKULAM BENCH,

ERNAKULAM

Original Application No. 180/00208/2025

Wednesday, this the 28th day of January, 2026

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)

Hon'ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)

Sadasivan Nair R.,

S/o. Raman Pillai, aged 83 years,

Headmaster (Retired),

Union Territory of Lakshadweep,

Residing at Sruthi, NRA-G 20,

NCC Nagar, Behind

Journalists’ Colony PO,

Perurkada, Trivandrum-695 005. ..... Applicant

(By Advocates: Mr. M.R. Hariraj, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Vishnu Prasad N.K., Ms. Gisha G. Raj,

Ms. Raheena P.I., Ms. Alina Anna Kose,

Ms. Akhila S., Ms. Karthika Ganesh,

Ms. Sandhra Maria Sebastian,

Mr. Nayanlal A., Ms. Jayalakshmi G. Nair,

Mr. Sangeeth Krishna G.S. & Mr. Sheron Williams)

V e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary,

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110 011.

Sebas tian Ant ony 202 6.01.28 1 3:13:42+ 05'30'

##PAGE2##

2

2. Director, Central Government Health Scheme, CGHS

Bhavan, Sector – 13, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – 110023.

3. Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme

(CGHS), TC-25/1379(1), CRA D 112, Charachira Road,

Plamoodu, Kowdiar, Trivandrum-695006. ..... Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. M.T. Muraleedharan, ACGSC)

This Original Application having been heard on 31.12.2025, the

Tribunal on 28.01.2026 delivered the following:

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

The applicant herein retired as Headmaster of a Junior Basic School

on 30.4.2002 from the revised pay scale of Rs. 7,450-11500/- with Grade

Pay of Rs. 4,600/- after the VIth CPC (pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6,500-

10,500/-) attached to the substantive post of Primary School Teacher

Grade-I held by him. He subscribed for a life time CGHS card with add

on to his spouse on 28.1.2014, in accordance with Annexure A3 OM

dated 20.5.2009. He was allotted the entitlement of semi-private wards

and issued with Annexure A4 CGHS card.

2. Consequent to fixation of basic pay in VIth CPC, applicant’s Grade

Pay was Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, as per

Sebas tian Ant ony 202 6.01.28 1 3:13:42+ 05'30'

##PAGE3##

3

Annexure A2, he contributed a sum of Rs. 325/- per month for 120

months, total contribution being Rs. 39,000/-. The minimum last pay

drawn by the applicant as per VIth CPC was fixed for the purpose of

revision of pension and family pension as Rs. 18,790/- with Grade Pay of

Rs. 4,600/- evidenced by Annexure A5. By Annexure A6, the pension as

per VIIth CPC was revised and fixed at Rs. 60,400/-.

3. According to the applicant, on account of implementation of the

recommendations of the VIIth CPC, rates of subscription under the CGHS

were revised and entitlement of wards in private hospitals empanelled

under CGHS was also consequentially revised. Every Central

Government officer whose basic pay was above Rs. 50,000/- was entitled

to private ward in the empanelled hospitals. According to the applicant by

virtue of Annexure A7, the applicant whose basic pay was revised to Rs.

60,400/- was eligible and entitled for private ward under the CGHS.

4. Requesting to upgrade his CGHS card in the light of Annexure A7,

the applicant submitted Annexure A8 representation dated 4.2.2025. It

was rejected by the 3rd respondent by Annexure A1. Another

representation dated 17.2.2025 was submitted as Annexure A9 requesting

Sebas tian Ant ony 202 6.01.28 1 3:13:42+ 05'30'

##PAGE4##

4

to reconsider his claim explaining more facts. It was rejected by

Annexure A2 order. Aggrieved by the above orders, the applicant has

approached this Tribunal.

5. The relief sought is to quash Annexures A1 and A2 and to declare

that the applicant is entitled to private wards with a further direction to

the respondents to revise and upgrade the CGHS cards of the applicant

and his wife to the entitlement of private wards.

6. Refuting the claim of the applicant, a reply statement was filed by

the respondents. It was contended that the contribution to the entitlement

of semi-private ward is calculated at R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top