Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Iqbal Singh Bhatia Son Of Shri Ram Singh ... vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.396-HR-2012 Chandigarh, this the 1st day of August, 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J). HON'BLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A). 1. Iqbal Singh Bhatia son of Shri Ram Singh Bhatia, aged 68 years, Head Sorter, HSG-1 (Retd.) R/o #3824/1, Kacha Bazar, Ambala Cantt. 2. Kuldeep Singh Saini so of Shri Gian Chand Saini aged 70 years, HSG-II (Retd.), R/o # 251, Tribune Model Gram, Baltana Zirakpur, District Mohali (Pb.). 3. Kailash Chander Verma son of Shri Atam Parkash, aged 67 years, Accounts Officer (Retd.), R/o # 8-D, Ram Nagar, Ambala Cantt. 4. Gurdev Singh Bhusal Son of Sh. Sadhu Singh aged 70 years, Divisional Engineer (Tel (Retd.), R/o 24, Jaggi Garden, Naraingarh Road, Ambala City. 5. O.P. Mehndiratta Son of Sh. Ram Chand, aged 70 years, PRI-P (Retd.) R/o # Flat No.504, Sea Garden Tower Satyam Apartment, Swastik Vihar, Zirakpur, District Mohali. 6. Paramveer Mehta S/o Shri Padam Parkash Mehta, aged 62 years, Section Supervisor (Retd.) R/o #1-202, Gali Masanda, V & PO Babyal District Ambala. 7. Pritam Chand Son of Shri Kishori Lal, aged 61 years, Postman (Retd.) R/o #37-A, Nasib Bagh, P.O. Babyal, Ambala Cantt. 8. Krishan Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh aged 72 years, Head Sorting Assistant (Retd.) R/o #30-A, Gobind Nagar, Near Gurdwara Sahib, Ambala Cantt. Applicants 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-Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Additional Direction, Central Government Health Scheme, 4th Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sector-9, Chandigarh. Respondents Present: Sh. Manohar Lal, counsel for the applicants. Sh. K.P.S. Dhillon, counsel for the respondents. O R D E R (Oral)
BY HON'BLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case the applicants have challenged the impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 01.8.1996 whereby, the medical facilities under CGHS Scheme have been denied to these pensioners who have not subscribed to CGHS Scheme while in service.
The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the said restriction vide A/1 made by the respondents had already been quashed by this Court while passing various decisions in O.A No.272/CH/2009 titled Prem Nath & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others decided on 29.9.2009, O.A. No.11/CH/2010 titled R.K. Vinayak & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others on 07.4.2010, O.A. No.79/CH/2011 titled Raj Kumar Seth & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others on 27.1.2011 (A-4 to A-6) and such restrictions were held to be arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the orders were further upheld by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in various civil writ petition Nos. 6051/2002, 3721/2007, 21955/2005, 27185/2005, 27186/2005, 27187/2005, 3510/2006, 9553/2006, 20615/2009, 11754/2006, 21958/2005, 46848/2004, 21954/2005 titled Union of India & Others Vs. N. Nanjundaiah & Others decided on 31.7.2009 (A-3). Abstract of relevant para 11 of this judgment is quoted herein below:
It is clear from the above said Government Order issued by the Central Government that even persons who had no availed Central Government Health Scheme facility before recruitment, would be entitled to avail the benefit after retirement and the said order is applicable to all the employees in the Central Government. However, an order has been passed on 01.8.1996 imposing restriction for applicability of the benefit of the Central Government Health Scheme only in respect of employees who have retired from Posts and Telegraphs Department and the applicants in all the O.As are the respondents in above Writ Petitions, who have retired from the Posts and Telegraphs Department and as per the order, they would be entitled to Central Government Health Scheme only if they had availed the benefit of the said scheme while in service and at the time of attaining the age of superannuation and if the retired employees of the Posts and Telegraphs Department were not availing the benefit of Central Government Health Scheme while in service, they would not be entitled for the benefit of the said scheme after retirement. The said order is clearly discriminatory and arbitrary as only the pensioners from Posts and Telegraphs Department subjected to the said restriction and pensioners from all other department are entitled to the benefit of Central Government Health Scheme even though they had not availed the benefit while in service. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained as arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the employees/pensioners of the Posts and Telegraphs Department would be entitled to the benefit of Central Government Health Scheme even if they had not availed the benefit under the said scheme while ins service and at the time of attaining the age of superannuation. In reply to these submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the applicants were not subscribers of this Scheme during their service tenure, therefore, they cannot become members now in terms of instructions dated 01.8.1996 (R/1).
After careful consideration of the matter, we find this point is no more rest-inegra and the same has been set at rest by various Courts and upheld by the Honble High Court in aforementioned CWPs, therefore, the impugned order Annexure A-1 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside.
Resultantly, the applicants are held entitled to be enrolled as CGHS members and the respondents are directed to allow the applicants and other similarly situated pensioners to subscribe to this Scheme and extend them the medical facilities as per provisions of this Scheme, whenever such necessity arises In terms of these observations and directions as above, this O.A. stands disposed of. No Costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: 01.8.2012. KR* 8 4 O.A. 396-HR-2012