In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought issuance of direction to the respondents to give him benefits of Central Government Health Scheme (for short CGHS Scheme) and not to deny the same to him merely because he has retired from Central Council of Indian Medicine (for short Council). According to him, being in service of the said Council, he was getting the benefits of the said Scheme.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in President CCRH Scientists Welfare Association & another vs. Union of India and others (WP (C) No.11962/2009) decided on 31.3.2011.
3. When the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, i.e., President, CCIM, submitted that the Council has taken up the matter with the Union of India to extend the benefits of CGHS Scheme to the pensioners of the Council, learned counsel Shri Ravi Kant Jain appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 submitted that the autonomous organisations are equipped with such funds and guidelines that they can make their own arrangements to provide medical facilities to their serving and retired employees while the CGHS does not have the infrastructure and paraphernalia sufficient to meet the need of pensioners of such autonomous bodies. It is noticed that the stand taken by the respondent nos.1 to 4 in the present Original Application had been taken before the Honble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.11962/2009 but was not accepted by their Lordships with a view that the serving employees of the school were getting the benefit of the CGHS Scheme. In the present case also, it is the stand of the applicant that the serving employees of the Council, i.e., respondent no.5 are given the benefit of the CGHS Scheme. The aforementioned Writ Petition with connected cases was allowed by the Honble Delhi High Court with the direction to the respondents to extend the facilities of the CGHS Scheme to the retired employees, pensioners and family pensioners of the CCRH and NMMI on the same terms as extended to retired employees, pensioners, family pensioners of the Government of India. For easy reference, paras 3 to 7 of the said judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court are reproduced herein below:-
3. Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, refers to the reply filed in these petitions where the stand taken is that the benefit of the CGHS cannot be extended to retired employees of autonomous organisations under the central government due to lack of infrastructure and financial constraints. Elsewhere, it has been pleaded that the CGHS facilities cannot be extended to retired employees of CCRH and NMML due to limited manpower resources at the disposal of the CGHS.
4. It appears to this Court that the stand of the government in the present cases is untenable. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 2nd April 2003 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5417 of 2001 by observing as under: In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 to 4, it is stated that CGHS Medical facilities are primarily for the Central Government employees/retired pensioners and their families. It is however, accepted that these have been extended to the employees of the School as well. The only reason stated for not extending these facilities to the retired employees of the School that within the available infrastructure and availability of resources, it may not be possible to cover any more beneficiaries under CGHS as the dispensaries are already catering the needs for which they were initially started. This cannot be a reason to deny the benefits to retired employees of the School who are otherwise entitled to the benefits in terms of their Service Regulations. Admittedly, no amendment is the Service Regulations and such an administrative decision taken by the Respondents to deny this benefit would clearly be contrary to the Service Regulations and thus illegal.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. SPA concurred with the above views in paras 16 to 18 of its judgment as under: 16. It has been accepted by the respondents that they have extended the medical facilities available to the Central Government employees to the employees of the School as well. However, it is alleged that the same facility is not extended to the retired employees? of the School due to lack of resources. We agree with the learned Singe Judge that there is a constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of providing for the health of such retired employees.
17. It is admitted by the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) that retired Central Govt. employees are getting the same medical facility as serving employees. We, therefore, fail to understand the logic for not extending the benefit to retired employees of the school. It is pleaded by the appellant that there is lack of financial resources, but no data has been given as to what would be the additional financial burden if the medical facility is given to retired employees of the school. Hence this contention is only the ipse dixit of the appellant.
18. It may be mentioned that retired employees are generally older people and it is well-known that old people are more infirm and more frail in need of more medical benefits as compared to younger people. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is eminently just and in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, which has been held in the abovementioned decisions to include the right to good health.
6. Although these cases were adjourned at one point of time to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) stated to have been filed by the Union of India against the aforementioned judgment dated 2nd February 2006 of the Division Bench in the Union of India v. SPA, learned counsel for the Petitioners point out that even while directing notice to issue in the SLP no interim order was passed by the Supreme Court staying the operation of the said judgment. The position, therefore, is that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the SPA case, which in the view of this Court covers the present cases, continues to hold the field.
7. Consequently, these two writ petitions are allowed. It is directed that the Respondents will extend the facilities of the CGHS to the retired employees, pensioners and family pensioners of the CCRH and NMML on the same terms as extended to retired employees, pensioners and family pensioners of the Government of India and its organisations. The necessary circular/clarificatory orders in this regard will be issued by the Union of India within a period of eight weeks from today. The medical claims, if any, of Petitioner No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 6841 of 2010, the members of the Petitioner associations in W.P. (C) No.11962 of 2009 and those similarly placed will thereafter be processed and disposed of within a further period of eight weeks thereafter.
8. The writ petitions and the pending application are disposed of in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the applicant in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court and take a final view in the matter within three months under intimation to him. No costs. (A.K. BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (J) /ravi/