Bombay High Court
Union Of India & Othes vs Mukund Shridhar Upasani Nagpur on 22 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2783.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2783/2005
PETITIONERS: 1. Union of India, through its Secretary
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi.
2. Director General, Health Services,
New Delhi.
ig 3. Director, Central Government Health
Scheme, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Additional Director, Central Government
Health Scheme, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Mukund Shridhar Upasani,
aged about 62 years, r/o 4th Layout, Jaiprakash
Nagar, Nagpur - 440 025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioners
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 22.08.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner - Union of India and others
have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated
16.7.2004 allowing an original application filed by the respondent and
wp2783.05.odt
directing the petitioners to extend the benefit of Central Government
Health Scheme (C.G.H.S.) facilities to the respondent.
The respondent had filed an original application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the petitioners to extend
the C.G.H.S. facilities to the respondent under the relevant C.G.H.S.
Rules. According to the respondent, the respondent had worked with the
petitioners for more than 39 years and retired from service at Amravati on
16.10.2002, after taking voluntary retirement. Since the respondent owns
and possesses a residential house at Nagpur, he decided to settle in
Nagpur after his retirement. When the respondent was stationed at
Nagpur and in Mumbai, the respondent was availing C.G.H.C. facility and
possessed the C.G.H.S. card. At the fag end of his service, the respondent
was transferred to Amravati, where C.G.H.S. facility was not available.
When the respondent sought for the C.G.H.S. facility after retirement, the
petitioners refused to provide the same and hence, the respondent filed
the original application, seeking the aforesaid relief. After hearing the
parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order, dated 16.7.2004 allowed the
original application by relying on the orders passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur and the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal held that the facility could not have
been denied to the respondent on the ground that the respondent had
wp2783.05.odt
retired from Amravati where the facility was not available.
Shri Chaudhari, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the original
application filed by the respondent. It is submitted that though the
C.G.H.S. facility is available to an employee retiring from Mumbai or from
Nagpur, the said facility is not available to an employee retiring from
Amravati, as Amravati is not included in the list of towns/cities where the
C.G.H.S. facility is available. It is submitted that the respondent would
have been entitled to medical allowance but not the C.G.H.S. facility. The
learned Counsel has relied on the Circular issued by the Under Secretary,
the Government of India to the Director C.G.H.S., dated 1.8.1996 to
substantiate his submission that the C.G.H.S. facility could be made
available only to the pensioners that were the members of C.G.H.S. prior
to retirement.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and on a
perusal of the impugned order as also the communication, dated 1.8.1996
and the other documents on record, it appears that the Tribunal was
justified in directing the petitioners to provide the benefit of the C.G.H.S.
facility to the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent was stationed at
Nagpur and at Mumbai during his service tenure, where the C.G.H.S.
facility was available. The respondent was availing the C.G.H.S. facility
wp2783.05.odt
when he was stationed at the aforesaid places. At the fag end of the
service, the respondent was transferred to Amravati where the C.G.H.S.
facility was not available. Merely because the respondent had availed
voluntary retirement while he was posted at Amravati, as rightly observed
by the Tribunal, the C.G.H.S. facility could not have been denied to the
respondent. The communication, dated 1.8.1996 on which the Counsel for
the petitioners has relied on, for denying the relief to the respondent
cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners for denying the said relief as
by the said communication, it was made known to the Director of the
C.G.H.S. that the C.G.H.S. facility could be given only to the pensioners
that were the members of the C.G.H.S. prior to their retirement and prior
to the retirement of the respondent, the respondent was availing the
C.G.H.S. facility at Mumbai and at Nagpur. The transfer of the respondent
to Amravati where the C.G.H.S. facility was not available, at the fag end
of his service, would not disentitle the respondent to the said benefit. The
Tribunal rightly held that the action on the part of the petitioners of
denying the C.G.H.S. benefit to the respondent is arbitrary, discriminatory
and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
We do not find any fault with the order of the Tribunal so as to interfere
with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
wp2783.05.odt
Since the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, the writ
petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp2783.05.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 24/08/2016
ig
