Orissa High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Haramani Behera .... Opp. Parties on 23 September, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C). No. 21313 of 2024
Union of India and Others .... Petitioners
Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC
-versus-
Haramani Behera .... Opp. Parties
Advoc
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 23.09.2024 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
2. Heard Mr. P. K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, learned CGC for the Petitioners.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Union of India represented through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata and Others challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No. 40 of 2022 in allowing the Original Application filed by the Opposite Party, Haramani Behera quashing the Order No. ER/P-KGP/CC/565/CAT/CTC/O.A- 288/20/HB dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Kharagpur, South Eastern Railway and directing the Petitioners to grant fixed medical allowances in respect of the Opposite Party from the date which she was sanctioned family pension.
4. It appears from the factual narration that the Opposite Party, Haramani Behera, the daughter of the deceased Railway employee, who is in receipt of the family pension after the death of her mother since 12.10.2020 and on coming to know about the Railway Board Circular dated 21.04.1999 regarding grant of Fixed Medical Allowance to the pensioner/family pensioners residing 2.5 Km. from the Railway Hospital and not availing the medical facility, submitted her representation on 21.09.2019 to avail such allowance. Since the same was not considered by the authority, she filed O.A. No.288 of 2020 before the learned CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack which was disposed of on 03.12.2022 with a direction to the Petitioners to consider the said representation and to pass a speaking order. Thereafter the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Page 2 of 8 Railway, West Bengal, Petitioner No.3 rejected the claim of the Opposite Party vide order dated 21.12.2021 which was impugned in the Original Application.
The Petitioners filed their counter affidavit and it is indicted therein that since no RELHS Card was issued in favour of the Opposite Party, therefore, there is no question of grant of Fixed Medical Allowance in her favour in terms of RBE No.168 of 2009. It is further stated that the widow of the deceased employee i.e. the mother of the Opposite Party had not opted either of the Health Schemes i.e. RELHS and RELHS-1997 by depositing the contribution as per the rate as applicable and therefore, she was not eligible for medical facilities under RELHS and not for FMA during her life time and since the mother of the Opposite Party did not join RELHS, she was not issued RELHS Card. According to the counter affidavit, it has been clarified in the RBE NO. 69/2014 that in cases where existing pensioner/ family pensioners were in receipt of Fixed Medical Allowance, the family pensioners next in line may be allowed Fixed Medical Allowance from the same date from which he/she becomes eligible. A RELHS Card and an eligible member for getting medical facilities under the Railway Health Scheme are prerequisite for eligibility of Page 3 of 8 Fixed Medical Allowance in lieu of opting out for OPD facility. It is highlighted in the counter affidavit that since neither of the conditions for eligibility of getting Fixed Medical Allowance fulfilled the case of the Opposite Party, her case was rejected.
The Opposite Party filed rejoinder wherein it was highlighted that her father died on 16.06.1967 and family pension was sanctioned in her mother's name since then. Since her mother was an illiterate lady and she did not know about the said schemes, she never opted for the same and never was issued with medical card or Fixed Medical Allowance.
5. The learned Tribunal took into account the relevant portion of the Fixed Medical Allowance provision which was introduced in the Railways vide RBE No. 65/99 and held as follows:-
" 7. From the above guidelines of the scheme it is clear from para 3 that no actual enrolment under any health scheme, as insisted by the respondents in the counter, is a prerequisite for grant of fixed medical allowance. In para 4 it is mentioned that in case of existing pensioners, the pension disbursing authority shall obtain the option and the undertaking and based on that medical allowance shall be paid. No documents has been produced to show that pension disbursing authority had done Page 4 of 8 so in case of the mother of the applicant while she was alive or when the family pension was sanctioned in favour of the applicant and she had decided to opt out of it. However it is also clear from para 9 that those opting for fixed medical allowance are not entitled to receive treatment as outdoor patients and only those pensioner who are members of existing Health Care Scheme can receive treatment for chronic disease. The applicant or her mother have never opted for any scheme or made any contribution, therefore the prayer of the applicant for issuance of medical card is not valid.
6. Learned Tribunal also took into account the RBE No.168/2009 relating to the clarification for grant of Fixed Medical Allowance and came to hold as follows:-
"9. Bare perusal of the above order makes it clear that actual enrolment under Health Scheme is not mandatory for grant of FMA. It is also abundantly clear from para 3 of the above quoted RBE No. 168/2009 that FMA and FMA arrears would continue to be paid to pensioners/family pensioners only after submission of the undertaking form to the Pension Disbursing Authority thereby implying that fulfillment of two conditions i.e. pensioner/family pensioner is residing beyond 2.5 km. from the nearest health unit and the pensioner/family pensioner is not availing the OPD facility are mandatory for becoming admissible to FMA.Page 5 of 8
10. In case of the applicant, the respondents should have looked at only those two conditions to see if she is eligible to FMA and if found eligible, she not only is eligible to get FMA but arrears of it too. The respondents insistence on her being part of any scheme for eligible to FMA is found illegal and without due application of mind. Therefore the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant fixed medical allowance in respect of the applicant from the date which she was sanctioned family pension."
7. Mr. P. K. Parhi, learned DSGI challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-3 which is dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Deputy Director, Pay Commission-V, Railway Board wherein it is indicated as follows:-
"2. The matter has been examined and in reference to the Board's letter dated 7-2-2008, it is clarified that since actual enrolment under the Health Scheme is not mandatory, those pensioners/family pensioners who, in terms of Board's letter No.97/H/28/1 dated 23.10.97, are eligible to become members of the Scheme but are not actually enrolled are also entitled for grant of Fixed Medical Allowance.
Pensioners/Family pensioners who posses Page 6 of 8 RELHS card & avail OPD facility are NOT entitled for Fixed Medical Allowance, whereas those who posses RELHS card but do not avail OPD facility (except in cases of chronic diseases, as defined in Board's letter No.2006/H/DC/JCM dated 12.10.2006) are entitled for Fixed Medical Allowance.
3. Further, FMA and arrears of FMA would continue to be paid, as earlier, to pensioners/family pensioners only after submission of the enclosed undertaking form to the Pension Disbursing Authority (PDA) thereby implying that fulfillment of the following two conditions is mandatory for becoming admissible for FMA:-
(i) the pensioner/family pensioner is residing beyond 2.5 kms from the nearest health unit;
(ii) the pensioner/family pensioner is not availing the facility of OPD (except in cases of chronic diseases as mentioned in para 2 above).
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in view of the mandates as mentioned under Annexure-3, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal was not justified in granting relief to the Opposite Party and therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside.
Page 7 of 89. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioners, we are of the humble view that the rejection order passed by the Petitioner No.3 and disallowing the claim of the Opposite Party for grant of Fixed Medical Allowance is contrary to the criteria laid down in Annexure-3 and the Opposite Party satisfies the criteria. Going through the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 and the averments taken in the Writ Petition and the analysis made by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, we find that the learned Tribunal has arrived at a just conclusion in setting aside the order passed by the Petitioner No.3 on 21.12.2021. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
(S. K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Signature Not Verified Judge
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
AKPradhan/SKBehera
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication Page 8 of 8
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 25-Sep-2024 11:22:06