Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.1 It was contended that Respondent No.2/CSB functions under the administrative control of Respondent No.1 and the pension of retired employees is as sanctioned from the consolidated fund of Government of India. Although, Respondent No.2/CSB has adopted the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 [hereinafter referred to as "CSMA Rules"] with the approval of Respondent No.1, these rules do not apply to retired employees of Respondent No.2/CSB. It is further contended that on more than one occasion, Respondent No.3/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had addressed communications to the Government requesting them to extend the insurance scheme called Central Government Employees and Pensioners Healthcare Insurance Scheme to the Appellants as well. However, on account of the fact that no approval has been received for the same, no benefits could be extended to the employees retired from Respondent No.2/CSB.

5.2 It is further contended by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 that the employees of autonomous statutory bodies are on a different footing as compared with the Central Government employees; thus, the question of Article 14 being violated does not arise at all, since it envisages equality amongst equals.

6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has averred that the Appellants, while they were in services were getting medical benefits under CSMA Rules, however, post-retirement, are getting only a few hundred rupees a month, as medical benefit. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court, it is contended that discrimination against retired employees like the Appellants by not extending the CGH Scheme is in clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Reliance in this regard has been placed on judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Union of India v. R. Rangarajan1. In this case the Court held that denial of benefits contemplated under the CSMA Rules or CGH Scheme to retired employees on the ground that retired employees are residents of areas not covered by CGH Scheme is prima 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 709 facie contrary to the spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and reasonable modalities are required to be implemented and worked out for the same.

9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the Shankar Lal Sharma case to submit that in similar circumstances, directions were passed by the Court. In Shankar Lal Sharma case, the principal question involved pertained to the non-applicability of the CSMA Rules to retired employees of All India Radio, Shimla, which was one of the cities where the CGH Scheme was not applicable [hereinafter referred to as "non-CGHS areas"]. The Respondents/pensioners in that case had placed reliance on an office memorandum dated 05.06.1998 wherein it was stated that the Ministry has no objection to the extension of CSMA Rules to Central Government pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas, provided that the modalities for the same are administered by their respective Ministries/Departments. It was further stated that the pensioners who were Central/State government employees would be given a one-time option at their retirement for medical coverage under CGH Scheme or CSMA Rules. The Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court had while relying on this office memorandum held that since no decision had been taken for 17 years, the memorandum would have been bound to be accepted by Union of India. In these circumstances, it was directed that Respondent and similarly situated retired Central/State government employees residing in non-CGHS areas be given the option to avail medical benefits.