Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Chandrasekharan Pillai R vs Cghs on 9 August, 2024
1 OA 481/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00481/2023
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
Shri Chandrasekharan Pillai R.,
Aged 67 years,
(Retd. Senior Stores Supdt./Defence
Civilian employee and presently
Practicing as Advocate)
No.558, 6th Main, Havanur Layout,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore -560073. .... Applicant
(By Party in person)
Vs.
1. The Director,
Central Government Health Scheme,
HQ (DG) CGHS, Nirman Bhavan,
Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi -110001.
2. The Assistant Director,
CGHS, 3RD Floor, E Wing,
Kendriya Sadan, 2nd Block,
Koramanagala,
Bangalore -560034. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.Prakash Shetty for respondents)
2 OA 481/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant has sought for a direction to the respondents to allow for upgradation of ward entitlement from semi-private ward to private ward as per revised entitlement issued vide letter No.S.11011/1/2016-CGHS(P)/EHS dated 28.10.2022 by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare.
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he retired from the Central Government as a Defence Civilian employee in the post of Senior Stores Superintendent in Group 'B', Pay Band level-7 and joined Central Government Health Scheme with effect from 02.12.2016 after his retirement on 30.11.2016 by paying the subscription amount for the life time CGHS facility. The applicant was issued with CGHS Card Nos.5231315 (applicant) and 5231317 (applicant's wife). The applicant is using the CGHS facilities since then. The applicant was entitled for semi-private ward as per the OM dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure A2). The applicant was drawing a basic pay of Rs.56,900/- on the date of 3 OA 481/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH his retirement in the 7th Pay Commission. Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide OM dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure A4) has revised the entitlement of semi-private ward to private ward for those drawing basic pay of Rs.50,500/- and above. Based on the said OM the applicant sought for revised CGHS Card claiming private ward facilities. The representation submitted by the applicant dated 22.08.2023 has been rejected vide email dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure A9(1)). Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant-party in person submitted that he was drawing a basic pay of Rs.56,900/- as on 30.11.2016 on the date of his retirement, after implementation of the 7th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016. Placing reliance on the OM dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure A5) and the OM dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure A4) issued in partial modification of OM dated 09.01.2017 as well as the clarification issued vide OM dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure A6) by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the applicant 4 OA 481/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH submitted that he is entitled for revised ward entitlement. In other words, his ward entitlement has to be upgraded to private ward from semi-private ward. His representation has been rejected referring to the attached letter dated 23.01.2023 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the Secretary, National Council (Staff Side), which is said to be not applicable to the case on hand. Hence seeks for the interference of this Tribunal.
4. Learned Counsel Shri S.Prakash Shetty representing the respondents referring to the letter dated 23.01.2023 submitted that all the CGHS beneficiaries were paying subscription at the old rates for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2017 and their ward entitlement was as per 6th CPC, as such the question of revision of ward entitlement of beneficiaries for the said period would not arise. Accordingly seeks for dismissed of the OA.
5. Having heard both the sides and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the applicant has submitted the representation dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure A8) before the Respondent No.1, raising certain grounds for claiming revision of 5 OA 481/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH his ward entitlement. The said representation has been rejected referring to the letter dated 23.01.2023. The said letter dated 23.01.2023 is general in nature and the same does not address the grievance of the applicant with respect to the OM dated 28.10.2022, whereby the entitlement of wards has been revised.
6. It is well settled that reasons are the live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision arrived at. Reasons being held to be the soul and heart beat of a valid order, lack of reasons would render the order void. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. As could be seen from the response given to the representation submitted by the applicant dated 22.08.2023, no application of mind is forthcoming except referring to the letter dated 23.01.2023. Such cryptic order certainly calls for interference of this Tribunal, being clearly indefensible.
7. In the circumstances, the mater requires reconsideration by the respondents. Accordingly, the reply/Annexure A9(1) dated 04.09.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 through email is set 6 OA 481/2023/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH aside. The competent authority is directed to consider the representation dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure A8) submitted by the applicant in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the grounds urged by the applicant in the said representation. Such compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Ordered accordingly.
8. OA stands disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs.
(JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (J) sd.