Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Chhotey Khan on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17771
1 MP-1638-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1638 of 2024
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
CHHOTEY KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Suresh Kumar Dagor - Advocate for the respondent no.1.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vinay Saraf By the present petition, petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in Original Application No.200/897/2021; whereby the application preferred by the respondent no.1 was allowed and the order dated 03.02.2020 issued for recovery was quashed and petitioners were directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.61,280/- in one instalment with interest at the GPF rate with further direction to PDA, State Bank of India, Branch Gulabganj to repay the arrears of Fixed Medical Allowance (in short "FMA") from February, 2020 to the date of order and thereafter payment of FMA be made every month on regular basis in the pension account of respondent no.1.
2 . Heard Shri Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 17-04-2025 12:53:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17771 2 MP-1638-2024 Shri Suresh Kumar Dagor, learned counsel for respondent no.1 for the purpose of final disposal of the petition.
3. Facts of the case are not in dispute and from the impugned order it reveals that respondent no.1 was working in Railways and superannuated on 30.06.2005. At the time of superannuation, he did not opt to join Retired Employees Liberalized Health Scheme-97 (in short "RELHS-97") as the same was not mandatory at the time of his superannuation, however, respondent no.1 was eligible for benefit of FMA. Since 01.07.2005 to 03.02.2020 payment of FMA was made to the respondent no.1 and all of sudden by order dated 03.02.2020, the benefit was stopped and an amount of Rs.61,280/- was recovered from the pension account of the respondent no.1 on 17.02.2020.
4. Being aggrieved by the action of the petitioners and the Bank, the respondent no.1 approached to Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur and filed the Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act seeking quashment of the recovery order dated 03.02.2020 and for return of the amount of Rs.61,280/- along with interest with further relief.
5 . The petitioners opposed the application on the ground that respondent no.1 was not entitled for FMA of Rs.100/- per month and the same was paid to the respondent no.1 wrongly, therefore, the recovery was made and the further payment of FMA has been stopped. It is further stated by the petitioners that as the respondent no.1 has not opted for RELHS-97, therefore, he was not entitled for payment of FMA.
6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the case of the rival parties, Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 17-04-2025 12:53:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17771 3 MP-1638-2024 allowed the application by impugned order dated 19.12.2023 by granting the relief, as stated hereinabove.
7 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the respondent no.1 did not opt for RELHS-97, he was not entitled for the payment of FMA, which was paid to him erroneously from 01.07.2005 to 03.02.2020, when the order for recovery of the amount was issued. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed error in directing the department to make payment of FMA to the respondent no.1 every month on regular basis in his pension account; whereas he is not entitled for the same.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has pointed out that by RBE No.168/2009 dated 15.09.2009, the Railway Board issued clarification regarding the grant of Fixed Medical Allowance and clarified that all the pensioners, those were eligible to become members of RELHS-97 but did not opt for the same, are also entitled for grant of FMA. He supported the order passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9 . After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent from RBE No.168/2009 dated 15.09.2009 that Fixed Medical Allowance is payable to all the pensions/family pensions, irrespective to the fact that whether they have opted RELHS-97 or not, if they are residing beyond 2.5 kms. from the nearest health unit and are not availing the facility of OPD.
10. The relevant paras of the RBE No.168/2009 reads as under :-
"Subsequent to the issue of Board's letter No. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 17-04-2025 12:53:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17771 4 MP-1638-2024 PC-V/98/I/7/1/1 dated 7-2-2008, references 'were received from pensioners/family pensioners 'and banks seeking clarification as to whether those pensioners/family pensioners who are members of RELHS and availing OPD facility are also eligible for the Fixed Medical Allowance.
2. The matter has been examined and in reference to the Board's letter dated 7-2-2008 ibid, 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 possess RELHS card & avail OPD facility are NOT entitled for Fixed Medical Allowance, whereas those who possess RELHS card but do not avail OPD facility (except in cases of-chronic diseases, as defined in Board's letter No.2006/H/DC/IICM 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 17-04-2025 12:53:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17771 5 MP-1638-2024 (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)."
11. In view of the above clarification issued by the Railway Board itself, the respondent no.1 was entitled for FMA and the same was paid to him in accordance with the applicable provisions and therefore, order dated 03.02.2020 issued for recovery of the amount was not in conformity with the rules and clarifications issued by Railway Board and the Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the said recovery order dated 03.02.2020. Similarly, the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the petitioners to refund the recovered amount along with the interest, as the same was recovered erroneously.
12. We do not find any error in order of the Tribunal directing the petitioners to make the payment of arrears of FMA from 03.02.2020 till date of passing of orders and for making the payment every month on regular basis in the pension account of respondent no.1.
13. Consequently, there is no error apparent in the impugned order and Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 17-04-2025 12:53:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17771 6 MP-1638-2024 no interference is warranted by this Court. The petitioners failed to make out a case for interference. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on due appreciation of facts and legal provisions.
14. The petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
TG /-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL
Signing time: 17-04-2025
12:53:19