Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56169
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
KHADEEJA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/3985/2021
P.ALI, SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM, SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR, CGC 2) THE DIRECTOR GENERALAdvocate
Entitlement to Fixed Medical Allowance is contingent upon application, with interest awarded for delayed payments recognized as necessary due to health impacts.
Headnote:
Pension - Fixed Medical Allowance - Act Section List - The court ruled on the entitlement of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) for a retired constable, affirming that FMA is granted only upon application and is limited by the terms of government orders from 1997 and 2019, ultimately awarding interest for delayed payments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband, a retired constable, was denied his Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) from retirement in 1988 until his death in 2018, with the allowance granted only from 2019 after numerous representations.
Issues: Whether the petitioner and her late husband were entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance from the date of his retirement and whether interest on delayed payments was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for FMA requires an application, and benefits can only be granted from that date; yet, interest on delayed payments is justified given the circumstances of health and reliance on the payment.
Final Decision: The court rejected the claim for FMA from 1988 but granted interest on delayed payments from 2015 to 2019.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner’s husband M.M.Alikunju was a Constable in the Border Security Force. He joined the BSF on 12.9.1968 and took voluntary retirement on 1.11.1988. Pension was sanctioned to Alikunju as per Ext.P1 Pension Payment Order, but the Admissible Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) was not released to him. After repeated representations in that regard, the 4th respondent issued Exhibit P4 dated 05.01.2015, informing Alikunju that the State Bank of India, Perumbavoor Branch had been asked to release his FMA with effect from November, 2019. But the Branch Manager was not prepared to release the amount without obtaining further clarification from the BSF. When this matter was informed to the BSF authorities, Alikunju was issued with Ext. P3 letter, reiterating that the Branch Manager was directed to release the amount. While so, Alikunju expired on 06.02.2018, after prolonged illness.
2. After the death of her husband, the petitioner also represented about non-disbursal of the FMA. Finally Ext P5 was issued on 26.05.2020, revising the family pension by including FMA at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from November 2019. The petitioner contends that her late husband was entitled for medical allowance from the date of his retirement, i.e., 1.11.1988 up to his death on 6.2.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was to be paid medical allowance up to November, 2019. Hence, the writ petition seeking the following reliefs;
“i) call for the records leading for non-payment of the entitled fired medical allowance on retirement to ex- constable Late M.M Alikunju from the date of his retirement till his death ie 1.11.1988 till 06.02.2018 and the petitioner till 1.11.2019 ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding 4th respondent to sanction the fixed medical allowance entitled to Ex - Constable, Late M.M Alikunju from the date of his retirement on 1.11.1988 till his death on 6.2.2018.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding 4th respondent to sanction the fixed medical allowance entitled to petitioner, the family pensioner of Ex-Constable, Late MM Alikunju from 06.02.2018 to 01.11.2019.
iv) to direct the 4th respondent to pay penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the whole amount of fixed medical allowances for the entire period from 01.11.1988 to 01.11.2019.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that FMA is a right conferred on serving as well as retired personnel and their families. The petitioner’s husband was entitled for FMA from the date of his retirement on 01.11.1998. In spite of such entitlement FMA is granted the allowance only from 1.11.2019. Alikunju had suffered from Cancer during the last years of his life and huge amounts had to be spent for his treatment. The respondents are therefore bound to pay the FMA due to Alikunju with interest at 18% per annum. The Apex Court decision in Vijay L. Mehrotra v State of U.P and others [ 2000(2) SLR 686 ] is cited in support of the claim for interest.
4. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit raising the following contentions;
5. After retiring from BSF on 01.11.1998, Ex-Constable M.M.Alikunju had represented to the Commandant about non-receipt of Central Government Health Scheme(CGHS) allowances only in November, 2014. On receipt of the representation, the Branch Manager, SBI Perumbavoor was addressed vide letter dated 19.11.2014, directing to release eligible Medical Allowance to Alikunju. Thereupon, the Assistant General Manager, SBI Centralised Pension Processing Centre, informed that medical allowance had not been sanctioned to Alikunju and sought clarification whether medical allowance is payable by virtue of Government Order No.4/25/2008-
B&W(D) dated 19.11.2014, even if the allowance is not sanctioned by the Pension Payment Order. Thereupon, the issue was taken up by the Personnel and Administration Department at New Delhi. While so, Alikunju died and his wife submitted representation d
