Administrative Tribunals lack jurisdiction to compel private hospitals to enter into cashless medical facility agreements.

The applicants, retired employees and officers of the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (E.P.F.O.) and members of the E.P.F.O. Pensioners Association, filed this Original Application seeking to set aside a reasoned speaking order (Annexure-A/1)

This order was passed by the respondents following directions issued by the Tribunal in a previous matter, O.A. No. 750/2024

The impugned order stated that while the respondent department had made efforts to contact private hospitals to provide cashless medical facilities to employees and pensioners at CGHS rates, the hospitals were not agreeable to such terms

The applicants sought a direction from the Tribunal to compel the respondents to ensure private hospitals enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for cashless facilities

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the adjudicatory jurisdiction to compel private hospitals to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a government department

2. Whether the Tribunal can exercise control over private hospitals under the provisions of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010

The Tribunal primarily applied the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which defines and limits the adjudicatory purview of the Tribunal to service matters of government employees.

It further referenced the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, noting that regulatory authority over medical institutions vests with bodies like the National Medical Commission (formerly the Medical Council of India), rather than the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that its jurisdiction is restricted to the mandates provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act and does not extend to private entities such as private hospitals.

The court noted that the respondent department had already complied with previous judicial directions by making bona fide efforts to secure cashless facilities, but could not force private hospitals to agree to specific financial or contractual terms.

The Bench reasoned that it lacks the legal authority to issue a writ of mandamus or any mandatory direction to private hospitals to enter into an MoU.

Furthermore, the Tribunal advised the applicants that any grievances regarding the conduct of clinical establishments must be addressed through the appropriate remedies available under the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, which falls outside the Tribunal's scope.

Consequently, the application was disposed of for want of jurisdiction.

No order was made as to costs.