Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
K Prema vs D/O Post on 6 September, 2018
1 OA.No.170/00526/2017/CAT/
BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00526/2017
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
HON'BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A)
K. Prema,
Aged 77 years,
W/o Late Vittala,
[Retd. Group-D, O/o the SPOs, Udupi Dn.]
Residing at 'Benaka' MIG-37,
Near A.V. Baliga Hospital,
Doddanagudde,
Udupi - 576 102 .....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B. Venkateshan)
Vs.
2 OA.No.170/00526/2017/CAT/
BANGALORE
1. The Union of India,
Repted. By the Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Postmaster General,
South Karnataka Region,
BG GPO Complex,
Bangalore - 560 001
3. The Supdt. of Post offices,
Udupi Division, Udupi - 576 101
....Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, ACGSC)
O R D E R (ORAL)
(HON'BLE DR. K.B. SURESH, MEMBER (J) Heard. The Hon'ble Apex Court had time and again held that right to life is a very valuable Constitutional right of a citizen. The applicant was afflicted with TB but she had the misfortune to live in a place where the CGHS was not in active participation yet the rules stipulate that even though resident at a distant place and hence not able to avail the benefit under CGHS she can still join CGHS and then avail of indoor medical treatment facilities but then CGHS and CSMA are thus complimentary to each other. Under CGHS rules indoor medical treatment is possible if a government employee on retirement stays at a place where CGHS is not applicable and taking medical allowance then under 3 OA.No.170/00526/2017/CAT/ BANGALORE the Constitutional proposition she should be able to get benefits under the CSMA rules. At this point of time we are not quashing the rule for the very simple reason that there may arise issues wherein the rules may have an application but not in cases like this. We will read down that rule and hold that when a particular option is to be held mandatory then the entire element of that option should be made available to the applicant, in effect that if CGHS rules are made applicable and applicant taxed accordingly then CGHS may be made available at that particular locality therefore it is the fault of the Government. No Government entity can rely on their failure to make way for prejudice against a retired government employee. To that extent the rule will be read down. This is not possible for the respondents to do. It is beyond them. Therefore we hold that applicant will be eligible to be considered under the CSMA rules and for the benefits according to the CSMA. This is declared.
2. At this point of time Shri S. Sugumaran, learned counsel for the respondents, submits further that when an option is given it has to be taken as it is. But then whenever an option is incomplete in itself as, if an option is to be given, it must cover all elements resident in it. This option of choosing CGHS and not being eligible for the benefit thereof is no option at all. Therefore this rule will not lie. We are not quashing the said rule for the very reason that it may have an application relevance in other circumstances but not in this circumstance. Therefore even though we are not quashing this rule we are reading it down to the effect that when an option is to be given the option has to be full and not partial. That being so, the applicant is eligible for the benefit under CSMA. Therefore there will be a direction to the respondents to calculate 4 OA.No.170/00526/2017/CAT/ BANGALORE and modulate payment to be made for the particular disease under CSMA rules and pay it to the applicant within one month next.
3. The OA is allowed to this extent. No order as to costs.
(DINESH SHARMA) (DR.K.B.SURESH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
Annexures referred to by the applicant in OA No. 170/00526/2017 5 OA.No.170/00526/2017/CAT/ BANGALORE Annexure A1 Copy of the applicant's pension payment order dated 26.07.2000 Annexure A2 Copy of the OM dated 20.08.2004 Annexure A3 Copy of the OM dated 24.08.1998 Annexure A4 Copy of the application with medical bills of the applicant Annexure A5 Copy of the rejection of claim dated 20.07.2017 Annexure A6 Copy of the order dated 28.08.2014 in O.A. No. 332/2014 Annexure A7 Copy of the order dated 12.03.2013 in O.A. No. 469/2013 Annexure A8 Copy of the order dated 30.03.2015 in Writ Petition No. 47075/2014 Annexure A9 Copy of the order dated 13.09.2012 in Writ Petition No. 18210/2005 Annexure A10 Copy of the order dated 05.08.2014 in O.A. No. 1565/2014 Annexures with reply statement Annexure R1 Copy of the OM dated 29.09.2016 Annexures with rejoinder Annexure RJ1 Copy of the OM dated 29.09.2016 *****