Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hakim G.S. Reena vs The Union Of India on 7 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2226/2013
Thursday, this the 7th day of November 2013
Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Hakim G.S. Reena
S/o Dr. S.S. Reena
Ex. Asstt. Registrar (Unani), CCIM
r/o C-89, Laxmi Kunj
Plot No.6, Sector 13
Rohini, Delhi-85
..Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. N.L. Bareja)
Versus
1. The Union of India
through its Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Department of Indian System of Medicines & Homeopathy
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1
2. The Secretary to Govt. of India
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
(Department of Ayush)
IRCS Building, Red Cross Road
New Delhi-11
3. The Central Council of Indian Medicines
through its President / Secretary
61-65, Institutional Area, D Block
Janakpuri, New Delhi-69
..Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Shivam Tripathi for Ms. Ruby Sharma for
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Ajay Kalra for
Mr. Mehmood Paracha for respondent No.3)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. Ajay Kalra, learned proxy counsel for respondent No.3 produced the counter reply on behalf of the said respondent, which is taken on record. He submitted that the decision regarding extension of benefit of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) to the pensioners of Central Council of Indian Medicines (CCIM) is to be taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to him, the said respondents have already taken a stand in terms of the letter File No.7-59/2000-CGHS/C&P/1822 dated 15.5.2008, i.e., the benefit of such scheme cannot be extended to retired employees of CCIM.
2. Mr. Shivam Tripathi, learned proxy counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeks further extension of time to file reply. Such request is opposed by Mr. N.L. Bareja, learned counsel for applicant on the ground that Honble High Court of Delhi has already taken a view in President CCRH Scientists Welfare Association & another v. Union of India & others (W.P. (C) No.11962/2009) decided on 31.3.2011 on an identical proposition and has issued directions for extension of benefits of CGHS admissible to the retired employees, pensioners and family pensioners of the Government of India and its organizations to the employees of CCRH and NMML. Mr. Bareja further submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction is given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to examine his claim in view of the said judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi and take a final decision in the matter. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been given sufficient time to file their counter reply but they have failed to avail the opportunities. Besides their stand is reflected in paragraph 4.9 of the counter reply dated 7.11.2013 presented by M/s Legal Axis Attorneys & Solicitors, which reads as under:-
4.9 That the contents of para 4.9 of the application are admitted in so far as they are a matter of record anything contrary thereto are wrong and denied.
It is stated that the answering respondent had written a letter dated written a letter No.15-1/2008-CGHS dated 28.03.2008 to the office of the Addl. Director (HQ), Central Government Health Scheme, New Delhi with regard to the extension of facilities of CGHS to the retired employees of the answering respondent was replied by office of Additional Director (HQ), CGHS vide letter No.7-59/2000-CGHS/C&P/1822 dated 15.05.2008 stating that:
In this connection it is to inform that your request has been examined in consultation with the Department of Health but it regretted. It has been viewed that as per present policy of the Government no new organization are to be included in the CGHS. The Department of Personnel and Training separately preparing a scheme of Health Insurance as on alternative to the serving employees as well as the retired employees of Autonomous Organizations benefited under the scheme.
3. In my considered opinion, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending to await such stand of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which has already been brought on record by by respondent No.3. Once the Honble High Court of Delhi has taken a view regarding extension of benefit of CGHS and the applicant has relied upon the judgment (supra), respondent Nos. 1 and 2 need to reconsider matter in view of the said judgment.
4. In the circumstances, the present Original Application is disposed with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the applicant for extension of benefits of CGHS to him in view of the aforementioned judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in President CCRH Scientists Welfare Association and convey their decision to the applicant by way of a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (J) November 7, 2013 /sunil/