Civilian defense employees are entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance where military hospital treatment facilities are unavailable.

The forty-nine applicants are civilian employees of the Defence establishment (80 Coy ASC (Sup)) located at Bengdubi, Darjeeling

They approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the release of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) at the rate of ₹100/- per month (or as revised), which had been withheld since September 1, 2008

The applicants relied on a communication from the Commandant of the Base Hospital (99 APO) stating that the hospital could not provide outpatient (OPD) or indoor treatment to civilian employees

This refusal of medical facilities was the primary ground for a previous Tribunal order in O.A./350/0191/2019, which directed the grant of FMA to similarly situated employees

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) in light of the Defence hospital’s inability to provide medical treatment

2. Whether the benefits of the judgment dated March 17, 2023, in O.A./350/0191/2019 should be extended to the current applicants

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, to permit joint prosecution by the forty-nine applicants

the Tribunal relied on the legal precedent established in its own prior order in O.A./350/0191/2019, which established that civilian Defence employees are entitled to FMA when departmental medical facilities (Base Hospitals) are unavailable to them

The Tribunal noted that the factual foundation of the claim—the Base Hospital's refusal to treat civilian employees—was supported by Annexure A/4 of the application

The court observed that this specific reluctance by the Defence medical authorities had already been adjudicated in O.A./350/0191/2019, resulting in a mandate to pay FMA

While the respondents were already aware of the issue, a final decision regarding these specific applicants remained pending

The Bench reasoned that calling for a formal reply would cause unnecessary delay. Instead, it determined that justice would be served by directing the administrative authorities to treat the O.A. as a representation and decide the matter in a time-bound manner consistent with the established precedent

The applicants were granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation within 30 days

The Respondents were directed to consider this representation in the light of the order in O.A./350/0191/2019 (dated 17/03/2023) and pass a decision within 90 days thereafter

No order as to costs was made