CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.547/2009
DATED THIS THE DAY OF AUGUST, 2010
HON'BLE SHRI N.D.RAGAHVAN ….VICE CHAIRMAN
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ….MEMBER(A)
N.K.
Suparna,
Aged
about 68 years,
S/o
N. Krishna Iyengar,
Retd.
Accounts Officer,
Bangalore
Telecom District,
R/at
No.89, Sathyanarayana Layout,
West
of Chord Road, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore
– 560 079. ... Applicant
(In person)
Vs.
1.
Union of India,
Rep. By Secretary,
Dept. of Telecommunications,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
No.20, Sanchar Bhavan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.
Chief General Manager,
Karnataka Telecom Circle,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 008.
3.
Principal General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District,
Rajbhavan Road,
Bangalore – 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Advocates Shri Mathew
Verghese for Shri S. Prakash Shetty,
Addl.Central Govt. Standing
Counsel for R-1 and Shri Vishnu Bhat,
Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.2 and 3)
O R D E R
Hon'ble
Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
One
measuring rod for a welfare society is – "Are our laws and rules, in
spirit as
well as in letter, caring for
the senior citizens?" This case
could be a pointer to that.
- 2 -
2. The case is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, against the order
dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure-a/1), passed by Respondent No.3, BSNL rejecting the claim of the applicant for
medical reimbursement for which he claims to be entitled to under the new
scheme introduced by BSNL for the benefit of existing as well as retired
employees. The said scheme also has the
merit of cutting down lot of paper work.
3. The applicant, whose last designation in the service of BSNL
was Accounts Officer, has retired in January, 2002. With effect from 24th February,
2003, BSNL introduced a new scheme for medical reimbursement for BSNL employees
as well as for retired employees. Under
the scheme, they were required to give a written option for the new scheme in
lieu of CGHS facilities earlier available.
The applicant's claim is that the BSNL has not circulated the scheme
widely and therefore, the retired employees who may have settled in different
parts of the country and at remote places had no means to know about the
it. Moreover, on the day of retirement,
he stood charged by the department with a criminal case because of which his
Pension and other benefits were withheld, he was given provisional pension
only, and even that had been withheld in August, 2003. Thus, his whole
attention was focussed in representing in those cases till he was finally
exonerated by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka of all the charges. Thereafter, he approached the office of
Respondent No.2 requesting for his Pensionary and other benefits as a
consequence to his being exonerated from the criminal case. It was at that stage that he came to know of
the circular whereupon he promptly gave his option for the benefits under the
new scheme. The concerned dealing
officials made inquiry about his erstwhile CGHS card, he explained to them that
he still retained his CGHS card taken during his service, but, had not made any
new CGHS card after retirement. He
claims that
- 3 -
it is a well known rule that the
post-retirement new CGHS card as well as CGHS benefits can be obtained only
after surrendering the old card issued during the service period. Since, he had not made the new card, BSNL
officials who showed him an additional letter dated 29.8.2003,asked him to
surrender his old pre-retirement CGHS card.
He acted upon this advice and in pursuance to the letter dated
29.8.2003, surrendered his service CGHS card to the office of Respondent No.2.
4. Now, coming to the claim of the applicant, he requested for
the benefits under the new scheme with effect from the date of coming into
force of the scheme as this was the benefit received by all others. However, as he was under the criminal charge
on that date and all his pensionary benefits had been withdrawn, and those
benefits were restored only during January, 2009, the BSNL authorities have
thought it fit to allow him the benefit of the new scheme only from 11.2.2009
(Annexure-A/4) which is the date of surrendering card and not from the date of
introduction of the scheme. The reason
given in the order dated 23.10.2009 was that the BSNLMRS allowance was payable
only from the date of surrender of the CGHS card as per letter No.WLF/12-32/2003,
dated 29-8-2003, issued by the Circle office, else, it would lead to double
benefit.
5. We have heard at length the applicant, who appeared in
person and also Shri Mathew Verghese, on behalf of Shri S. Prakash Shetty,
Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Shri Vishnu Bhat,
Standing Counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3.
6. The applicant has stated the following main grounds in
support of his case.
(i) When
he retired in January, 2002, he was under the criminal charge and the
department had sanctioned only provisional pension to him. Since then, he
-
4 -
has been
attending the Courts and focussing attention on thecase, which was far more
crucial to him. In July 2003, even the
provisional pension was permanently withheld.
Only after dismissal of the criminal case against him in January, 2009,
the applicant was paid all the Pension arrears and other benefits with
retrospective effect as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
and hence, the medical allowance as payable under the new scheme must also be
paid as arrears of pensionary and other consequential benefits.
(ii) The
applicant was a victim of circumstances and the Hon'ble High Court has
acquitted him from all the charge and department has been directed to pay all
the benefits. The applicant is punished
again by respondents by not sanctioning M.R.A. from retrospective date which is
illegal, unlawful and against the acquittal judgment of Hon'ble High Court.
(iii) Since, the original scheme does not talk of surrendering the
CGHS card, the fact that his CGHS card was surrendered only on 11.2.2009 should
have been ignored by the respondents.
Even a casual look at the card can itself reveal that it being a service
card, the applicant could not have claimed any medical benefits from the CGHS
against that card after his retirement.
(iv) As
for not submitting the option earlier, he has two arguments.
(a) Firstly,
the scheme was not widely circulated and hence was not noticed by him who had
settled away from his head quarters during service.
(b) Further,
he was denied the pensionary benefits. during that period and obviously, he put
all his attention to the criminal case.
Hence, he must not be deprived of the medical
-
5 -
benefits.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the
letter issued by CGMT, Karnataka Circle, dated 29.08.2003 under which the
BSNLMRS scheme has been made effective from the date of surrender of the CGHS
card by the employees. His second
argument is that the benefits under the scheme cannot be considered as the
benefits consequential to the pensionary benefits and therefore, the High Court
order allowing him the Pension and otehr benefits pertains only to his Pension
and Gratuity, but does not extend to the medical allowances or similar such
benefits.
8. We find that there is a lot of substance in the claim made
by the applicant. It is quite natural
that during the period 2003 to January, 2009, he had to focus his attention to
the crimal charges against him which threatened the pension and other benefits
of his service. Although, the
departmental reply given to him on 23.10.2009 at Annexure-A/1 mentions that
wide publicity was given in March every year in respect of the BSNLMRS
benefits, the respondents have not produced any evidence and have not explained
to us the manner by which such a wide publicity was given. Affixing any scheme details merely on the
Notice Board of the Head quarters may be a good and adequate method for the
serving employees, but, definitely not for the retired employees. Further, all the replies given to the
applicant do not make any reference to delay in exercising option but only
makes a reference to the date of surrender of his pre-retirement CGHS
card. Against such surrender of CGHS
card, a small yearly medical allowance is to be paid to each employee without
production of any bills and that is the medicl benefit which the applicant is
claiming. These replies also fail to carefully observe and appreciate that his
service CGHS card must have stopped giving him any benefit from the CGHS
institutions after his
- 6 -
retirement. The whole effort of BSNL circular appears to
be to ensure that an employee or a retired employee who becomes entitled to
payment of medical allowance without producing any medical bills under the new
scheme, should not draw two benefits simultaneously, viz., the benefits under
the BSNLMRS as well as those under the CGHS.
This principle has to be appreciated in its spirit as well as in its
letter. Since the CGHS card surrendered
by the applicant was not his post retirement card, but was the card made for
him during his service period, it is obvious that he could not have claimed any
benefit from the CGHS during the period 2003 to 2009. This is the core reason of our conclusion,
not to mention that the respondents have not produced any documents to
enlighten us as to how those claims were decided where option was exercised and
benefit was taken after 24.2.2003 (date of scheme) but before 29.8.2003 (date
of the letter).
9. We do not agree with claim of the department that such a
medical benefit scheme does not form part of the consequential benefits which
becomes due to the applicant after his exoneration from the criminal charge and
restoration of retirement benefits.
10. It is therefore, ordered that the respondents will calculate
the medical benefits due to the applicant from the date of the new scheme till
11.2.2009 and pay the same to the applicant within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the OA is allowed with no order as to costs.
(LEENA
MEHENDALE) (N.D.
RAGHAVAN)
MEMBER
(A)
VICE CHAIRMAN
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment