Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 1 March, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1460-PB of 2012 Chandigarh, this the 1st day of March , 2013 CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J) Ranjit Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh, aged 62 years, Chief Section Supervisor (Retired), r/o House No. 237, Block 37, Street No. 3, Nirmal Nagar, Dugri, Ludhiana-141002. APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE: SHRI MANOHAR LAL . VERSUS 1.Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Room NO. 545, 5th Floor, A-Wingh, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 3.Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, 4th Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9, Chandigrh. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: SH. SANJAY GOYAL. ORDER (Oral)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J):-
1.The present O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
(i)Respondents action together with any other instruction, which prohibits the enrollment of P & T Telecom Pensioners as beneficiaries of CGHS be quashed and set aside;
(ii)Respondents be directed to forthwith extend the facilities of CGHS to the applicant on payment of usual subscription by issuing CHGS cards to avail CHGS facilities at Chandigarh at par with other Central Government pensioners;
(iii)Any other relief/direction/order this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant; and
(iv)Cost of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant.
2.Sh. Manohar Lal, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the present case is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. NO. 704/2001 titled N. Nanjundaiah Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 20.11.2001, which was affirmed in a judicial review challenge by the Honble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore vide judgment dated 31.7.2009 in Writ Petition No. 6051/2002 & Others titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. N. Nanjudaiah. He further submitted that relying upon that decision the Single Bench of this Tribunal allowed the O.A. O.A. NO. 915-PB-2010 titled Tara Singh & Another Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 18.03.2011.
3.Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly accepted that the similar controversy has already been set at rests by this Tribunal in the case of Tara Singh & Another (Supra) and Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of N. Nanjundiah (Supra).
4.I have considered the matter and gone through the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Tara Singh & Another Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 18.03.2011, the operated paras 6 to 8 of which reads as under:-
6. I have considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. Admittedly the letter dated 01.08.1996 has already been set-aside by the Honble High court of Karnataka being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that the employees/pensioners of Posts and Telegraphs Department are entitled to the benefits of CGHS scheme even if they had not availed the benefits under the said scheme while in service and at the time of age of superannuation. Following the above stated judgment, this Tribunal has already directed the respondent department to enroll the applicant therein as member under the CGHS Scheme. More over neither it has been pleaded nor argued that the above stated judgment has been unsettled by the higher court. Being the welfare State it was expected from the respondents to apply those decisions to all similarly situated persons without compelling them to knock the doors of the Courts. Doctrine of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is binding on the State and its agencies. The State has to take active steps for crating a situation where real equality can be enjoyed by the citizens. The concept of fairness in the State action forms part of the doctrine of equality. It is, therefore, imperative for the State to be fair to all its citizens. Therefore I see no reason in not extending the similar benefit to applicants. This action of the respondents can safely be termed as arbitrary, and discriminatory. Once the letter upon which respondents are relying upon has been set-aside then there is no reasons for the respondents to deny the same benefit to applicants and similar situated persons. It is held by the Honble Apex Court that once the benefit has been granted to an employee that the department can not deny the same to similar situated employees seeking same relief. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Division Bench of jurisdictional High Court of Honble Punjab & Haryana 1995(1) SCT 711 titled Rattan Singh Vs. State of Haryana. Similar was also reiterated in case reported as 1992(2) RSJ 377 titled as Satyapal Singth & Others Vs. State of Haryana and others which read as under:-
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was really not a judgment in personam but was a judgment in rem inasmuch as law has been laid down and the petitioners in that case were held entitled to the relief claimed by them. Really speaking, the State Government should have itself granted the same relief to other similarly situated persons though they may not have come to the Court. The State Government should under such circumstances apply the law itself to the similarly situated persons instead of forcing any individual or a Union to resort to unnecessary litigation as law is already settled and only the same has to be applied to the facts of a particular case. The petitioners in the present case had, though their Union, filed a representation in August, 1992 after the judgment of the learned Single Judge. If the respondent failed to comply with the judgment because of the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal and then the appeal before the Apex Court, the petitioners cannot be denied the same benefit as was granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. The respondents as a welfare State should rather see to it that the litigation in the Courts is minimized. After this Court or the Apex Court lays the law, it should see to it that similarly situated persons automatically get the same relief without resorting to litigation.
7. Not only this the Honble Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Lallita S. Rao AIR 2001 SC 1792 and others has held that the orders issued by the court in earlier cases should be applied and enforced in respective of the fact whether some are the party proceeding or not. Even in E.S.PA. Raja Ram and others Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 2001 SC 581.
8.In view of the above stated facts coupled with authoritative law, the original application is allowed, the respondents are directed to enroll the applicants as CGHS members within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say that the similar situated employees of the respondents department be also extended similar benefit. No order as to costs.
9.On a consideration of the matter and the decision rendered in the aforementioned O.A., I am of the considered view that the controversy in the present O.A. is squarely covered by a decision rendered in the case of Tara Singh & Another Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 18.03.2011 and feel that the ends of justice will be met if the same benefit is extended to the applicant in the present O.A. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Tara Singh & Another (Supra).
10. Disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER(J) Dated: 01.03..2013 `SK