D.K. Tyagi And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

The applicants are retired employees from Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (NYKS), which is an autonomous body under Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports - respondent no.2.

As of now they are getting Rs.300/- p.m. of medical allowance. They are seeking medical/CGHS facilities.

It is the contention of the applicants that during the service period, all employees of NYKS are entitled to medical facilities as per Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1990 [hereinafter referred to as CS (MA)], but after retirement no medical/CGHS facilities are available to them. They have contended that as per NYKS Office Order Ref. No.11022/NYKS/PERS:Confirmation/910/07 dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure A-8), the emoluments structure and conditions of service of these regularized District Youth Coordinators were to be exactly similar to those of the corresponding categories of the Central Government employees. Since the Central Government employees are extended CGHS facility, therefore, this benefit should also be extended to the NYKS retired employees.

They have sought the following specific reliefs:-

"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of declaring to the effect the whole action of the respondents not extending the Medical/CGHS facilities to the retired NYKS staff is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to extend the Medical under CS (MA) Rules/ CGHS facilities to the applicants and similarly situated retired NYKS staff with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."

The applicants have cited several rulings in support of their claim which will be discussed subsequently.

The respondents have controverted the claim of the applicants and have stated that even the serving employees of NYKS do not get CGHS benefit and, therefore, there is no question of grant of this benefit to NYKS employees after retirement. They have also stated that in the meeting of Committee of Secretaries held on 04.06.2015 (Annexure R2/2) a decision was taken not to extend CGHS facility to any new organizations and that NYKS is not at par with Government Departments. Department of Youth Affairs and Sports Circular dated 14.05.1998 (Annexure R2/3) has made a distinction wherein it states that no pension scheme will be introduced for post Sangathan employees who will continue to be governed by the EPF scheme as at present. It has also been specifically stated that the employee of Sangathan will hereafter be governed by CS (MA) Rules for the purpose of medical cover. They have used this to boost their claim that NYKS employees are not at par with Central Government employees. It is their contention that NYKS is not covered by CGHS, therefore, the question of providing CGHS facility to retired employees of NYKS does not arise. They have further stated that serving NYKS employees continue to be governed by the provisions of CS (MA) Rules and retired government servants are specifically excluded from the CS (MA) Rules, 1944.

Heard Sh. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sh. R. Ramachandran and Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Pratap Singh (Pensioner) vs. Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau & Ors. [OA No.284/2006 decided on 23.08.2006]. The said matter is a specific case of a retired official, who was allowed medical reimbursement for emergency treatment, which was undertaken to save his life.

Though, in the aforesaid decision, the right to medical treatment was recognized, but the issue was not one of getting coverage under CGHS.

The applicants have further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S.Srinivasa Rao vs. Union of India decided on 06.11.2006 where it does speak of constitutional right of health facility, but it pertains to extension of CGHS facility to retired employees, who were availing of this benefit before retirement but did not get it after VRS.

The applicants have also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Union of India & Ors. Vs. R.Rangarajan & Anr. [WP(C) No. 32770/2004 & Ors. decided by a common order dated 29.09.2008]. This case pertains to the issue of CGHS beneficiaries residing in CGHS and non-CGHS areas. Therefore, this decision is not directly applicable to the case in hand as the applicants did not get the CGHS benefit even before retirement.

The decision of this Tribunal in K.N. Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. [OA No.1422/2017 decided on 19.09.2018] has also been relied upon by the applicants in support of their claim. This matter pertains to Sports Authority of India, which has its own rules and bye-laws. This Tribunal held that since bye-laws were silent on this issue, therefore, the benefit was allowed to be extended to the applicant therein. This ruling is also not applicable in the present case.

Similarly, decision of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh of Shmila in Union of India vs. Shankar Lal Sharma [C.W.P.4421/2011 decided on 28.12.2015] and of this Tribunal in Ms. Sudha Bharti vs. KVS [OA No.2472/2016 decided on 06.10.2016) pertain to CGHS benefit in non-CGHS areas for CGHS covered persons and grant of CGHS benefit after retirement to employees who got this benefit during service respectively. Hence, these decisions will also not directly apply for grant of CGHS benefit to the applicants in this current OA since they were not getting the CGHS benefit before retirement. However, the broad thread running through these rulings is that there should not be any discrimination.

The applicants have also cited the decision of this Tribunal in R.S. Giri Assistant [Retd.] vs. Union of India & Ors. [OA No.1549/2013 decided on 23.04.2014], whereby retired employees of KVS were given CGHS facilities at par with serving employees of KVS.

Having considered the arguments and the material placed on record from both sides, I am of the view that employees of NYKS - an autonomous organization, cannot be considered at par with Central Government employees. As serving employees of NYKS do not get the CGHS facility, there is no question of extending this facility to them after retirement. It has also to be kept in mind that as per the decision taken in the meeting of Committee of Secretaries held on 04.06.2015, CGHS facility would not be extended to any organization.

As far as extending the medical cover under CS (MA) Rules is concerned, the present CS (MA) Rules, 1944 contain the following clause:-

"Rule 2

NOTE-2. These rules do not apply to -

(i) Defence Service personnel;

(ii) Government servants who are on leave or deputation abroad;

(iii) non-Gazetted Government servants, including Group 'D' and Gazetted Government servants (other than Central Services, Group 'A') drawing pay less than Rs.2,500/- stationed in or passing through Calcutta for whom special arrangements for medical attendance and/or treatment have been made, vice Section 6 of this Compilation.

(iv) retired Government officials;

(v) non-officials sent on deputation abroad;

(vi) Government servants who are governed by the Central Government Health Scheme while in stations where this Scheme functioning;

(vii) officers of the All India Services and other persons who are governed by the All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954; and

(viii) India-based officers and staff serving in Missions abroad, who are governed by the Assistant Medical Attendance Scheme." [Emphasis added]

In light of these provisions it is clear that retired employees are excluded from the CS (MA) Rules and these rules have not been specifically challenged in this OA. However, considering the fact that medical needs increase with advancing years, the respondents are free to look into any medical claims of the applicants which may require some consideration due to the circumstances of the case.

With the above observations, this OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.