AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,
K.V. Eapen, Member A",,
The applicant had filed this O.A seeking the following reliefs :,,
Declare that the non-feasance on the part of the respondents to restore and pay the applicant the monthly Fixed Medical Allowance,,
already being paid to the applicant and to continue to pay the same from 01 January 2010 onwards is arbitrary, discriminatory and hence,",,
violative of the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21.",,
Direct the respondents to restore and pay the applicant the monthly Fixed Medical Allowance from 01 January 2010 onwards, with all",,
consequential benefits arising therefrom, within a time frame as may be found just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal.",,
Award costs of and incidental to this application.,,
Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.,,
In this regard, a Single Bench of this Tribunal passed an oral order on 22.12.2017 allowing the O.A to a limited extent. The respondents in the O.A",,
then appealed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) No.201/2018. The Hon'ble High Court on 04.02.2021 remitted the matter back,,
to the C.A.T., Ernakulam Bench for consideration and decision afresh, after setting aside the final order dated 22.12.2017 rendered by the Tribunal. It",,
was also directed that the Tribunal would afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides and take all reasonable endeavours possible in the,,
circumstances to ensure the early final disposal of the main matter without much delay, preferably on or before 31.03.2021, or at any rate, before the",,
Tribunal closed for the summer holidays in the second week of April, 2021. However, due to the closure/disruption of hearings in the Tribunal due to",,
the Covid-19 pandemic, the window given by the Hon'ble High Court for disposal of the matter unfortunately could not be maintained. The matter was",,
finally heard on 11.01.2022 and the O.A was reserved for orders thereafter.,,
The issue at hand in the O.A relates to the matter of restoration of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) to the applicant from 01.01.2010 onwards.,,
The applicant is a pensioner who superannuated as an Administrative Superintendent from the Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL),,
under the Ministry of Defence at Kochi on 30.09.2002. At the time of his superannuation he opted to receive the FMA payable to retiring employees,,
in terms of the Government of India, Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare O.M.No.45/57/97-P&PW(C) dated 19.12.1997, a copy of",,
which has been produced at Annexure A-1 in the O.A. After retirement the applicant was receiving the FMA as opted for. His wife became a,,
cancer patient during 2008 and since her continued treatment affected his savings, he submitted a letter dated 19.01.2010 addressed to the 5th",,
respondent (the Defence Pension Disbursement Officer, Kochi) (DPDO) requesting that grant of FMA be stopped with effect from 01.01.2010 so",,
that he could opt for the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) in order to facilitate further treatment of his wife at Trivandrum. On receipt of,,
this application, the DPDO, Kochi gave him a “Pension Certificate†indicating that no medical allowance would be paid with effect from",,
01.01.2010. A copy of the “Pension Certificate†has been produced by the applicant at Annexure A-2. A perusal of the same would indicate that,,
it is recorded that medical allowance has ceased with effect from 01.01.2010 and that it has also been recorded therein that “this certificate was,,
issued for producing before the CGHS authorities only.†The other entries in the Pension Certificate relate to his pension number, details of the Bank",,
through which pension is to be paid as well as the amount being paid as pension, Dearness Relief etc.",,
The applicant submits that he could not move to Trivandrum for further action to join the CGHS for treatment of his wife because of her critical,,
condition. As he was the sole person available to look after his ailing wife, he had no option in this regard. He submits that his wife finally succumbed",,
to the disease in January, 2012. Since he had taken enormous financial as well as other liabilities, he submitted another letter dated 23.01.2012,",,
produced at Annexure A-3, addressed to the DPDO, Kochi, stating that he could not submit the Certificate issued to him by the authorities for",,
inclusion and treatment under the CGHS. It was explained in the letter that due to the practical difficulties in re-establishing his family in Trivandrum,",,
he did not submit the pension certificate issued to him to the CGHS authorities. It was also indicated that he had not claimed any medical allowances,,
from 01.01.2010. He prayed in this letter that under these circumstances necessary action may be taken to reinstate his medical allowance, in order to",,
lessen his financial hardship and that arrears may be given to him and regularized from the date of discontinuation of medical allowance by DPDO. It,,
was also indicated in the letter that he will surrender the original Pension Certificate issued by the DPDO on hearing from him. The letter at Annexure,,
A-3 was responded to by the DPDO on 30.01.2012 by the letter produced at Annexure A-4. The DPDO mentioned therein that, from the records in",,
the office, the applicant had already exercised the option not to avail FMA. It was also recalled that this is a one time option and at present there is no",,
provision to change the option at their end.,,
On receipt of this letter from the DPDO, Kochi the applicant submitted a representation to the Accounts Officer, Zonal Office, Defence Pension",,
Department (DPD), Trivandrum (the 4th respondent), vide Annexure A-5, stating that his request for restoration of FMA was turned down by the",,
DPDO vide the letter at Annexure A-4. He requested that the case be reconsidered for restoration of the FMA from the date it was discontinued as a,,
special case in order to mitigate his financial hardship. On receipt of this letter the Accounts Officer, Trivandrum replied to the applicant on",,
01.03.2012, vide Annexure A-6. In this letter it was suggested that a certificate should be obtained from the CGHS authorities on the basis of the",,
Pension Certificate issued by the DPDO, Ernakulam on 19.01.2010 that he had not availed any benefits of CGHS till date and that the same may be",,
submitted to the DPDO Ernakulam for their further action. The applicant then submitted a representation to the Joint Director, CGHS, Trivandrum",,
(the 6th respondent) praying that a certificate to the effect that he had not availed any benefits from CGHS till date be issued to him. A copy of this,,
letter was also endorsed by the applicant to the Zonal Office, DPD, Trivandrum (4th respondent) as well as the DPDO, Ernakulam (5th respondent).",,
The Zonal Office, DPD, Trivandrum (4th respondent) seems to have taken cognizance of this as they too took up the matter with the Joint Director,",,
CGHS Dispensary, Trivandrum, through a letter, copy of which is produced at Annexure A-8, asking him to take necessary action to issue a",,
certificate to the effect that the individual had not availed the CGHS facility till date and that he was not a CGHS beneficiary as on date. It was also,,
requested that the certificate be endorsed to the DPDO, Ernakulam for further necessary action. In response to this, the Joint Director, CGHS,",,
Trivandrum then issued a letter to the Accounts Officer, Zonal Office, DPD, Trivandrum, produced at Annexure A-9. In this letter, the Joint Director,",,
clarified that Central Government pensioners residing outside the covered area of CGHS can also avail the CGHS facilities and also have the liberty to,,
enrol themselves with any CGHS Wellness Centre all over the country irrespective of his/her place of residence. It was also mentioned in the same,,
letter that : ""However it is clarified that Shri.N.P.Vishwanathan has not enrolled as CGHS Card holder from CGHS Trivandrum. Hence it is",,
difficult to issue certificate whether a person has availed CGHS facility from any of the city covered. Before retirement the individual has to,,
opt for whether the individual needs CGHS or FMA. This record will be available with the department concerned for future reference.""",,
A copy of the above letter produced at Annexure A-9 was sent to the DPDO, Ernakulam by the Zonal Office, DPD Trivandrum vide Annexure A-",,
10 for further necessary action. A copy of the forwarding letter was also given to the applicant. Meanwhile, it is seen that the applicant had endorsed",,
a copy of the application at Annexure A-5 dated 09.02.2012 for restoration of FMA to the next level of the Defence (Pension) Department (DPD),",,
ie., the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA), Chennai (3rd respondent). He got a reply from that office stating that in reference to his",,
representation dated 09.02.2012 regarding restoration of Medical Allowance, as mentioned by the DPDO, Ernakulam vide their letter dated",,
30.01.2012, it is a one time option only. In addition to these correspondences, the applicant has produced copies of other letters sent between the three",,
offices of the DPD ie., Chennai, Trivandrum, and Kochi (Ernakulam) relating to the matter. Finally, on 23.11.2012 vide Annexure A-14, the 3rd",,
respondent, CDA, Chennai, communicated to the DPDO, Kochi a copy of PCDA, Allahabad's (2nd respondent) letter dated 19.01.2012 which was",,
described as 'self-explanatory'. It was mentioned in the forwarding note that “As Shri.N.P.Viswanathan (the applicant in this O.A) has once opted,,
for CGHS, he is not entitled for switching back to FMA since change of option is admissible only once in life.†The applicant then submitted more",,
representations produced at Annexure A-15 and Annexure A-16, wherein he pointed out that while he might have opted for CGHS, he had not",,
actually enrolled as a CGHS member and, hence, his option for CGHS may be treated as cancelled. He clarified that he could not submit the",,
documents at CGHS, Trivandrum and join the CGHS Scheme as his wife was under medical treatment for cancer at Ernakulam. After this he",,
received a copy of letter from the PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad (2nd respondent) addressed to the DPDO, Ernakulam, (with a copy to him) produced",,
at Annexure A-17. It was stated therein that the pensioner has already been granted FMA @ Rs.100/- per month as per office PPO and the revised,,
rate @ Rs.300/- and @ Rs.500/- per month is admissible in accordance with the office circular No.78 dated 08.07.2010 and circular No.130 dated,,
07.01.2015. It was also indicated that the DPDO may verify records and if FMA is not being paid to the pensioner, to make payment as per the above",,
order. Further, in a Note at the end of the said letter it was stated that ""pensioner's can avail one time facility for change of option as per this",,
office circular No.G1/C/195/Vol.-I/tech dated 25.02.1998 read with circular No.117 dated 16.01.2014.""",,
Since there was still no further action taken by the DPDO, Ernakulam on this letter at Annexure A-17, he submitted yet another representation,",,
produced at Annexure A-18, to the 2nd respondent. No response was received on the same. He submits in the O.A that he is past 74 years of age (he",,
would be 80 years old now). He had not joined the CGHS at all; which means that the so called option he exercised for grant of FMA had not been,,
recalled at any point of time. The refusal on the part of the respondents to restore and grant the FMA with effect from 01.01.2010 is arbitrary and,,
discriminatory. He had not availed any facility under CGHS either on his behalf or on behalf of his deceased wife. Therefore the contention that he,,
cannot seek the restoration of the FMA is without any substance. The denial of the benefits to him on the ground that he has no 'second' option is not,,
based on relevant considerations. Once it was seen that even though he had received the Pension Certificate at Annexure A-2 he actually not opted,,
for the CGHS benefits, the FMA payable to him has to be restored. He submits that there is no option not to avail a FMA but the option is either to",,
avail the FMA or to avail the medical facilities under the CGHS. He decided not to avail the medical facility under CGHS and he had also produced,,
the necessary certificate to indicate this fact. Thus, the respondents are not justified in standing on technical grounds to deny him the benefits of the",,
monthly FMA payable from 01.01.2010. It is also submitted that the State is not justified in resorting to such technicalities when dealing with very old,,
persons like him who lead a desolate life in isolation.,,
It is further submitted that in order to exercise a fresh 'second' option to come back to the FMA as alleged by the respondents, he ought to have",,
actually joined the CGHS and then exercised another option to come back to draw the facilities of FMA. Since he had not joined the CGHS, therefore,",,
the exercise of a 'second' option to come back to the FMA facility does not exist. Thus, the contentions of the respondents are not sustainable. It is",,
also submitted that the 2nd respondent, PCDA, Allahabad by Annexure A-17 letter had directed the 4th respondent, Accounts Officer, Trivandrum to",,
release the applicant's FMA from the date from which it had been ceased to be drawn ie., from 01.01.2010. It is thus submitted that the 4th and 5th",,
respondent, DPDO, Ernakulam have no option but to draw the FMA and release it to him once this direction from the PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad",,
was received. Medical facilities are extended by the Government as part of the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.,,
That right cannot be negatived by the respondents through willful inaction or wrong interpretation of Government orders.,,
In addition to the above points, the applicant has also produced a copy of the Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 31.03.2002, at Annexure A-19",,
in his rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. Through this he seeks to establish his submission that the PPO carries a special endorsement that,,
FMA at the rate of Rs.100/- per month is payable to him in addition to the pension calculated in the PPO. He submits that the respondents had not,,
disputed that he had opted for the FMA just before his retirement. The same was being granted with effect from 01.10.2002, the date of",,
superannuation being 30.09.2002. At Annexure A-20 another revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 08.12.2017 issued by the PCDA,,
(Pensions) Allahabad is also produced by him. In this PPO it has been indicated thatâ €œall other entries including commuted amount of pension,,
to be deducted, division of family pension etc. as notified in original PPO/Corrigendum PPOs will remain unchanged.†He submits that",,
after the issuance of the Annexure A-19 original PPO, he has not been issued with any other PPO/Corrigendum PPO, except the new one produced",,
at Annexure A-20. Thus, the entries relating to the grant of FMA in his original PPO still remain unchanged. His submission is that the 5th respondent,",,
being the DPDO, Ernakulam, has thus no authority whatsoever to either stop payment of FMA or to amend, vary or modify Annexure A-19 PPO",,
issued by the 2nd respondent, PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad.",,
The respondents through their learned counsel Mrs.P.K.Latha have filed a reply statement. They have also filed an additional reply statement,,
against the contentions in the rejoinder. In addition, an argument note has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is admitted by them",,
that the applicant had submitted his option for drawal of FMA along with his pension papers at the time of his proceeding on superannuation. Thus, on",,
his superannuation, he was granted FMA at the rate of Rs.100/- as notified in the PPO produced at Annexure R-5, indicating also that the date of",,
commencement of pension is 01.10.2002. The DPDO, Ernakulam is the Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA) for the applicant. The PDA was",,
disbursing the FMA from 01.10.2002 to 31.12.2009 as per the PPO Notification at Annexure R-5. However on 19.01.2010 the applicant submitted an,,
option produced at Annexure R-2 for joining the CGHS facility and also to be issued a Certificate. The 5th respondent, being the PDA, accepted the",,
option as a one time facility for change of option is permissible. A certificate for stoppage of FMA was issued. Subsequently the applicant again,,
submitted another application dated 23.01.2012 claiming grant of FMA from 01.01.2010. It is submitted by the respondents that no provision exists for,,
exercising a 'second' time option for change over and the same was intimated to the applicant vide the 5th respondent letter dated 30.01.2012. It is,,
submitted that the applicant has not highlighted before the Tribunal that he had already availed the one time change of option on 19.01.2010. The,,
option for change that he had requested vide his application dated 23.01.2012 was the 'second' time change option, which is not permissible under the",,
existing rules. It is also submitted that if the second option exercised by the pensioner/applicant is allowed by the Tribunal, every pensioner would use",,
it as their right to change their preference any number of times. This would open a flood gate of litigation and the department would be put into,,
irreparable loss and injury. The Hon'ble High Court in its order in O.P.(CAT) No.201/2018 dated 04.02.2021 (supra) set aside the orders of this,,
Tribunal dated 22.12.2017 in O.A.No.829/2016. The Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration and decision afresh. Thus, it is",,
submitted that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and the same is liable to be dismissed.,,
Clarifying the above position in more detail the respondents, in their reply to the rejoinder, have submitted that the genesis of the Fixed Medical",,
Allowance (FMA) lies in the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare's (DoPPW) Office Memorandum (O.M.) No.45/57/97-P&PW(C) dated,,
19.12.1997 produced by the applicant at Annexure A-1. This O.M allowed the sanction of FMA @ Rs.100/- p.m (at that time) to Central Government,,
pensioners/family pensioners residing in areas not covered by Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) administered by the Ministry of Health &,,
Family Welfare or by corresponding Health Schemes administered by other Ministries/Departments for their retired employees for meeting,,
expenditure on day to day medical expenses that do not require hospitalization. This order took effect from 01.12.1997. Further, in paragraph (3) of the",,
O.M it was mentioned that the existing pensioners, as well as future retirees, shall have to exercise a one time option to avail of medical facilities",,
under CGHS and other similar Health Schemes of their Ministry/Department or claim FMA of Rs.100/- p.m. It was indicated that in the case of,,
future retirees, the option would have to be obtained by the Head of Office along with other pension papers. In case the retiring employee opted for",,
8,"As per para 3 of the O.M an option
is to be exercised once for all. For
this an annual undertaking is required
to be furnished by the pensioner to
his PDA to regulate payment of
monthly allowance or otherwise.
Situation may arise when a pensioner
residing in CGHS area and was
availing facilities thereof, changes his
residence and resides in an area not
covered under CGHS or similar other
scheme of the Government. He
would then be required to surrender
his PPO/PC to his new PDA for
regulating payment of allowance or
otherwise. Similarly, when a
pensioner residing in an area not
covered under CGHS and thus a
receipient of medical allowance,
changes his residence and resides in
an area covered under CGHS,
discontinuance of the allowance will
have to be suitably endorsed in the
PPO/PC by the PDA. A fresh
option/undertaking shall have to be
given by the pensioner for
payment/discontinuance of the
allowance. It is felt that one time
option will not be a fruitful
proposition.","To prevent misuse of claiming medical
allowance, the provision for exercising one
time option at the time of retirement has
been prescribed. The frequent changes in
residential address by a pensioner from
CGHS covered area to a non-CHGS
covered area and vice-versa would cause
hardships to the pensioner as well as to
the pension disbursing authority. Only
one change in option in the life time of
a pensioner shall be allowed.
change in option pensioners can submit their revised option to their PDA and PDAs can take action accordingly. Further, the PPO need not indicate",,
any change in the cancellation of FMA as is being contended by the applicant. As per the Circular dated 16.01.2014 at Annexure R-4, pensioners,",,
who had originally opted for medical facilities under CGHS or under corresponding health schemes, who may desire to change their option and to",,
draw FMA are only to be notified by the PCDA through a Corrigendum PPO from their date of option. However, in the instant case, the option",,
exercised by the pensioner/applicant is the other way round ie., an option to avail CGHS facilities, for which a notification for cancellation of FMA",,
through a Corrigendum PPO does not arise. The PDA can simply stop the FMA on receipt of the option without any other corresponding correction in,,
the PPO by issue of the Pension Certificate, which has been done in the matter, a copy of which is at Annexure A-2.",,
We have brought out all these different contentions in detail as the two parties have provided every detail relating to grant of FMA and the,,
apparent option for the CGHS. We have also heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs.Kala T Gopi on behalf of Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy, as well",,
as learned counsel for the respondents, Mrs.P.K.Latha, ACGSC. Notwithstanding all these details the crux of the issue in this matter is whether the",,
applicant availed the one time option allowed for pensioners for a change from drawal of FMA to joining/enrolment in the CGHS facility or vice versa.,,
It is the contention of the respondents that by signing for change of the option in his letter, produced at Annexure R-2 dated 19.01.2010, the applicant",,
has foregone any choice for further changes. He has indicated in his letter at Annexure R-2 addressed to the DPDO, Ernakulam that he may be",,
issued a Certificate to join the CGHS Scheme and that his medical allowance of Rs.100/- may be stopped from January, 2010. He also signed the",,
form of option. Accordingly, he was immediately given the Pension Certificate, as per Annexure A-2, by the DPDO, Ernakulam. It is indicated therein",,
that his medical allowance has ceased with effect from 01.01.2010. It is also indicated that the said certificate is being issued for producing before the,,
CGHS authorities only. Thus, on the face of it, as contended by the respondents, the applicant has exercised his one time option for change allowed by",,
the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare's O.M dated 30.12.1998 at paragraph 8, produced at Annexure R-1, and outlined in detail in",,
paragraph 11 above. Further, the contention of the respondents that allowing any constant change in option between enrollment under the CGHS",,
facility/similar schemes and drawal of FMA would create a huge administrative burden on the PDAs as well as other concerned authorities due to the,,
procedures to be followed also deserves consideration. In fact this particular issue appears to have been considered and the clarification issued by the,,
authorities in the O.M dated 30.12.1998 could be termed as reasonable and justified overall in the circumstances. In any case, it could be even further",,
argued that the constant switching of option between one facility and the another (ie., between FMA vs. CGHS Scheme) depending on what is more",,
beneficial to the pensioner at a particular point of time, due to his/family health considerations, change in address, adequacy of medical facilities",,
available nearby etc. was not part of the original philosophy for introduction of FMA. FMA was introduced mainly for the benefit of pensioners who,,
were living in areas not covered under a CGHS facility. However, it now appears, from the letter produced at Annexure A-9, that notwithstanding",,
such consideratons, pensioners can enrol themselves for CGHS facilities through CGHS Wellness Centres all over the country, irrespective of their",,
place of residence ie., even if they are residing outside the covered area of CGHS. Thus, even those who are outside the covered area of a CGHS",,
Centre can avail CGHS facilities. Inspite of the Government is still allowing the continuation of FMA in lieu of CGHS. We, however, make this",,
observations not so much in the context of this particular case but as a general point.,,
As per the policy as it stands at present it clearly appears that two options are given to the pensioner at the time of retirement ie., either to (a)",,
draw FMA or (b) enrol under the CGHS facility or any similar scheme of any Ministry/Department, but not both. There is no dispute that before his",,
retirement the applicant had given the option to draw FMA and he continued to do so from his date of retirement in 2002 to 2009. The Government,",,
through O.M dated 30.12.1998, had clarified that a one time option for a change would be allowed. The applicant used this to formally apply for a",,
change and was issued a Pension Certificate by the DPDO allowing the same. To this extent the facts are not contested. However, the point to be",,
examined in our consideration is whether the applicant's option to switch to the CGHS, exercised vide his application of 19.01.2010 was formally",,
exercised and implemented. As per the procedure in such matters, after the issue of Pension Certificate at Annexure A-2 the applicant was still",,
required to submit the same to the CGHS authorities. He would have to get himself formally enrolled in the Scheme and also be issued a CGHS card,",,
before he could be considered to be a member of the CGHS Scheme. The CGHS authorities seem to have confirmed vide their letter at Annexure A-,,
9 that he has not enrolled himself as a CGHS card holder at least from CGHS, Trivandrum, though they also submit that it is difficult to issue a",,
certificate whether a person has availed CGHS facility from any other of the covered cities as allowed under the Scheme. Since no evidence has been,,
brought to the contrary in this connection, it does not appear that the applicant formally enrolled himself into the CGHS. Thus, the apparent one time",,
option supposed to have been exercised vide his application dated 19.01.2010, at Annexure R-2 and Pension Certificate issued at Annexure A-2, by",,
the DPDO, Ernakulam seems to have been not carried to its logical final culmination, which would be by way of issue of a Pensioner's Card by the",,
authorities of the CGHS and formal enrollment in the scheme. In such a situation can it be taken that the applicant had actually exercised his option to,,
switchover to the CGHS? It is also significant in this context to have a look at the DoP&PW O.M dated 19.12.1997 at Annexure A-1. The O.M,,
indicates that CGHS or other medical authorities while issuing Cards to the pensioners shall check the position in this regard from PPO and restrict the,,
facilities to be made available accordingly ie., whether the Card is valid only for indoor/outdoor patient treatment, as the case may be. In this case no",,
such Card clarifying what facilities are being made available and whether it is valid for indoor/outdoor facility seems to have been issued to the,,
applicant. Hence, it is permissible to draw a conclusion that an apparent choice made by the applicant to enrol himself in the CGHS and avail of",,
CGHS facility at one stage was not actually carried through. His so called option was not actually implemented and so cannot be taken as exercised.,,
If it is viewed from this angle it supports the position of the applicant that he should therefore be continued under the scheme of FMA, which he was",,
drawing earlier, as at no stage has he drawn both facilities together or availed of the CGHS facility. A mere letter submitted to the authorities without",,
the full follow through would seem to relying on a hyper technicality that an option was exercised.,,
Thus, in the overall context of the facts of this case, we accept the position of the applicant that he is entitled to the continuation of payment of",,
monthly FMA in his case as he did not actually join the CGHS or avail any facility therein. However, at the same time, we cannot fully ignore that he",,
had informed the authorities to stop the drawal of the FMA and that the authorities had issued a Pension Certificate in his case. It was only later on,,
23.01.2012, that he gave a letter to the DPDO, Ernakulam clarifying that he had not enrolled himself nor submitted the Pension Certificate to the",,
CGHS authorities or drawn the medical allowance from 01.01.2010. Thus while he is entitled to draw the FMA as he had been drawing, we would",,
find that, on balance and in the interest of justice, his date of application ie., 23.01.2012 can be taken as the date for restoration of his FMA. It would",,
be wrong to penalise the authorities for not giving him FMA between the period from 01.01.2010 till he actually made a claim for restoration of the,,
same ie., 23.01.2012. Thus, the relief sought for in the O.A is allowed to the extent that the applicant may be allowed to draw the FMA, as applicable",,
to him and as per the rules prescribed, with effect from 23.01.2012. All the arrears in this regard should be paid within a period of two months from",,
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.,,
In passing these orders we would also like to make it clear that this order shall not be looked upon, in any way, as allowing the benefit of a second",,
time change in option. We have already clarified our views in this regard earlier. It is purely in the facts and circumstances of this case, in which, we",,
have found the provision for change of option was not actually carried through and the option was not exercised that we are allowing the relief to this,,
extent. In effect, therefore, we hold that the applicant's restoration of FMA should not be taken to be against any circulars/notifications issued by the",,
Government in this regard relating to change in option for pensioners.,,
With the above directions, the O.A is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.",,