Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
K.K. VAMANAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's retirement, son's accident treatment, and tribunal rejection. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on om extension versus clarifications and precedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. om 1998 not binding; no extension to non-cghs pensioners. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. rules unamended; petition dismissed upholding denial. (Para 9 , 10) |
This Original Petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.180/00672/2022 aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, dismissing his original application.
2. The petitioner retired as a Junior Engineer(Civil), from the Andaman Public Works Department and he is now settled in North Paravur, Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, his place of residence will not fall under the Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter referred to as CGHS, for short) and the nearest CGHS covered city, was Thiruvananthapuram. He claims that it is Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as CS (MA) Rules, for short), which is applicable to him and he had opted for Fixed Medical Allowance (hereinafter referred to as FMA, for short), in lieu of CGHS. While so, on 07.05.2022, the 24
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
