AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
The instant RA No. 129 of 2024 in OA No. 1345 of 2017 has been filed by the Review Applicant on 25.11.2024 under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with section 19 and Section 22 (3) (f) of CAT Act, 1985 seeking (a) Recall/Review its judgment order dated 23.10.2024 in OA 1345/2017 and admit the OA with reliefs claimed by applicant; (b) Pass any such other order as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
The operating part of our order dated 23.10.2024 for which review is sought reads as follows :-
“6. Heard both sides and examined the documents on record. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the speaking order passed by the Additional Director, CGHS Head Quarter, in compliance with the directions passed by this Tribunal in MA No. 3590/2022 vide Daily Order dated 20.09.2019 is a well reasoned, rational and clearly a self explanatory order directing the applicant to deposit the fees for the CGHS Card which inter alia reads as under :-
“Subject: Speaking Order in compliance with the directions of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in MA No. 3590/2022 in OA No. 1345/2017 in the case of Subhash Chander Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
With reference to the above subject the undersigned is directed to refer to the Daily Order dated 20th September, 2019 of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in MA No. 3590/2022 in OA No. 1345/2017 in the case of Subhash Chander Vs U.O.I. & Ors. with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the representation dated 06.03.2017 of the applicant (Sh. Subhash Chander) and keeping in view Para 5(i) of OM No. S.11011/11/2016-CGHS(P)/EHS dated 09.01.2017 pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order afresh.
In compliance of the directions of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, the representation of the applicant (Sh. Subhash Chander) has been reconsidered and as per Para 5(v) of OM No. S.11011/11/2016-CGHS(P)/EHS dated 09.01.2017, "Any pensioner/family pensioner who is entitled to avail CGHS facility has not so far got his/her pensioner CGHS card made, the rate of contribution in such cases will be with reference to the level of pay that he/she would have drawn in post held by him/her (at the time of his/her retirement/death) had he/she continued to be in service now but for his/her retirement/death".
Hence, as on date, the beneficiaries retired before 01.02.2017 have to deposit the CGHS contribution as per the prevailing rates for CGHS pensioner card.”
As per the Office Memorandum dated 09.01.2017, the rates have been revised from Rs.325/- per month to Rs.650/- per month with effect from 01.01.2017 and to get the CGHS Card with lifetime validity, a pensioner has to make contribution for 10 years (120 months) at the rate of Rs.650/- per month which comes to Rs.78,000/-(Rs.650 x 12 months x 10 years). Subsequent to the OM dated 09.01.2017 another OM of even No. dated 13.01.2017 was issued which inter alia reads as follows :-
“Those employees superannuating on or before 31/1/2017 and had submitted their application on or before 31/1/2017 may be allowed the subscription at the prevalent rates applicable as on 31/1/2017 vide OM no. 5.110111/2/2008-CGHS (P) dated 20/5/2009. Pensioners applying for CGHS pensioner card on annual/lifetime basis after 31/1/2017 will have to pay as per the revised rates effective from 1/2/2017 vide OM of even no. dated 13/1/2017'.”
In the light of the above clear order, the applicant hereby is directed to pay Rs.78,000/- and get his lifelong CGHS card. The ratio given in the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI and others vs. Mahendra Singh 2022 SCC Online SC 909 which reiterates the settled principle in law “by Privy Council in the Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emperor, wherein it was held that “that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” gives more force to this.
We have observed that the applicant retired on 30.04.2016 and then settled down in a non CGHS area where he is entitled to fixed medical allowance of Rs.500/-per month as per DoPT’s OM No. 4/25/2008-P&PW(D) dated 19.11.2014 which reads as follows :-
“The undersigned is directed to say that at present Fixed Medical Allowance is granted to the Central Government pensioners/family pensioners residing in areas not covered under Central Government Health Scheme administered by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and corresponding health schemes administered by other Ministries/Departments for their retired employees for meeting expenditure on their day-to-day medical expenses that do not require hospitalization Orders were issued vide this Department's O.M. of even no, dated 26.05.2010 for enhancement of the amount of Fixed Medical Allowance from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/-p.m we.f. 1.09.2008.
The demand for further enhancement of FMA has been under consideration of the Government for some time past. Sanction of the President is hereby conveyed for enhancement of the amount of Fixed Medical Allowance from Rs 300/- to Rs.500)-per month. The other conditions for grant of Fixed Medical Allowance shall continue to be as contained in this Departments OMs No.45/57/97-P&PW(C) dated 19.12.97. 24.8.98, 30.12.98 and 18.8.99.
These orders will take effect from date of issue of this OM.
These orders are issued with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Expenditure) vide their I.D. Note No 588/F.V/2014 dated 22.10.2014 and in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India vide their UO No. 174 Staff (Rules)/02-2011 dated 12.11 2014.”
Accordingly, in light of the above OM, the respondents are directed to pay to the applicant a fixed medical allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 1. 05.2016 till the present date when the applicant pays Rs.78,000/- as a lump sum amount for the lifetime CGHS card. This exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, on ground of equity, the respondents may consider adjusting the arrears of fixed medical allowance payable to the applicant from the amount of Rs.78,000/- to be paid by the applicant for the life long CGHS Card so that his financial burden is reduced.
With the above direction, the OA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending M.A if any also stands disposed of accordingly.”
The Review petitioner has stated in his RA that the order passed in the OA suffers from patent errors apparent on the face of it resulting in miscarriage of justice on the following grounds :-
“(i) It has come to the notice of the petitioner that vide its OM No. 4/34/2017- P&PW (D). dated 19th July, 2017; Government of India has revised the rate of medical allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- per month effective from 01.07.2017. This revision took place after the petitioner had superannuated on 30.04.2016 and even after he filed the said OA in this Hon'ble Tribunal on 17th April, 2017. This revision was not even in the knowledge of petitioner and could not earlier be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal.
(ii) For that impugned order dated 23.10.2024 grossly violate Rule 4(2) below Order XX of Civil Procedure Code-1908. The impugned order dated 23.10.2024 does not address these questions by taking all the pros and cons into consideration and is against Order XX Rule 4(2) and Section 2(9) of Civil Procedure Code 1908.
(iii) The OA 1345/2017 has been disposed of without going into the merit of the case and without determination of points of dispute with reason for the decision and therefore is a gross miscarriage of justice.
(iv) For that impugned order dated 23.10.2024 suffer from multiple error of facts and ignores crucial evidences advanced by applicant in support of his claim.
(v) Petitioner had not opted for CGHS after his retirement as stated in the para 2 of the impugned order. He had opted for CGHS before his retirement as was the rule laid down under OM F. No. 45/57/97-P&PW(C) dated 19th December, 1997.”
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the issues raised in the RA and are of the considered opinion that there has been no miscarriage of justice or travesty of law. The applicant who retired as Assistant Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 30.04.2016 may have opted for the CGHS Scheme before his retirement but since he had not paid the requisite fees at that point of time, hence he was not made a CGHS beneficiary by the respondents. During the course of hearing of this OA filed by the applicants, Office Memorandum dated 09.01.2017 on revision of rates of subscription under CGHS was issued by the Government and now under the extant rules and regulations, if the applicant wants to now become a CGHS beneficiary, then he has to abide by the existing government orders on this subject. He has to pay an amount of Rs.78,000/- at the rate of Rs.650/- per month for 10 years (120 months) as per the OM dated 09.01.2017. Now, he can no longer hide behind the old rules and has to pay as per the revised rules and that has been clearly mentioned in our order dated 23.10.2024.
We strongly deny the allegation that there has been any violation of Rules and orders of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. There have been no errors and omissions of both – points of facts as well as points of law. No evidence advanced by the applicant’s plea that the OA has been decided without getting into the merits of the case and without determination of points of dispute with reason is unjustified and untenable. We have decided the OA on ‘fair, equitable and reasonable grounds’ in a holistic and judicious manner adhering to the three principles of natural justice :-
(i) Nemo Judex in causa sue (Rule against bias);
(ii) Audi Alteram Partem (Rule of fair hearing) and
(iii) Our orders are well reasoned and speaking with clear and cogent raison d’etre/ratio decidendi.
To our mind, the instant RA is disguised as an Appeal. It is a settled principle in service jurisprudence that Tribunals are not meant to be Appellate Fora against their own orders and that the appeal against the Tribunal’s order lies before the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, we find no merit in the instant RA and the same is dismissed.