Facts
The Petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2016 as Assistant Controller of Accounts
Source reference: para. 4Post-retirement, he settled in a non-CGHS area
Source reference: para. 5At the time of his retirement, the monthly CGHS contribution was ₹325 based on the 2009 Office Memorandum (OM)
Source reference: para. 5On 09.01.2017, the Ministry revised the rates to ₹650 w.e.f. 01.01.2017 following the 7th Central Pay Commission
Source reference: para. 5The Petitioner applied for a life-time CGHS pensioner card on 03.03.2017 but was asked to pay the revised lump sum of ₹78,000 (₹650 x 120 months)
Source reference: paras. 7-8He challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), claiming the old rate of ₹325 applied to him. CAT dismissed his O.A. and subsequent review, directing him to pay the revised rates while ordering the respondents to pay/adjust his Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA)
Source reference: paras. 1, 13, 15Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner's subscription for a life-time CGHS pensioner card is governed by the pre-revised rate (OM dated 20.05.2009) or the revised rate (OM dated 09.01.2017)
Source reference: para. 32. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an enhanced Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) of ₹1000 per month from 01.07.2017
Source reference: paras. 45, 48Law Applied
Para 5(v) of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 09.01.2017, which stipulates that pensioners who have not yet obtained a CGHS card must pay contributions based on the revised pay levels as if they were still in service
Source reference: para. 26The term "subscribing" under Para 5(i) requires actual payment of fees, not merely applying for the scheme
Source reference: para. 31The principle from Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, holding that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all
Source reference: para. 22OM dated 19.07.2017, which enhanced the allowance to ₹1000 w.e.f. 01.07.2017
Source reference: para. 48Reasoning
The Court noted that the OM dated 09.01.2017 superseded all earlier instructions
Source reference: para. 27Although the Petitioner relied on Para 5(i) (allowing for retirement-time rates), the Court found he had not "subscribed" to the scheme because he had not paid the requisite fees at the time of retirement
Source reference: para. 31The Court held that Para 5(v) specifically covered his situatuion as a pensioner who had "not so far got his card made," making him liable for the revised rate of ₹650 applicable "now"
Source reference: paras. 33-35Even though subsequent OMs (dated 13.01.2017 and 21.02.2017) extended application deadlines, they did not alter the fact that the prevailing rate as of 31.01.2017 was the revised ₹650
Source reference: paras. 41, 44Regarding FMA, the Court observed that though CAT directed payment at ₹500, the OM dated 19.07.2017 had since increased this amount to ₹1000
Source reference: paras. 48-50Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding CAT’s order that the Petitioner must pay ₹78,000 for the life-time CGHS card
The Court clarified that the Petitioner is entitled to FMA at ₹500 per month from 01.05.2016 to 30.06.2017 and at the enhanced rate of ₹1000 per month from 01.07.2017 onwards, provided he remains eligible. The respondents were permitted to adjust these FMA arrears against the ₹78,000 lump sum owed by the Petitioner
Source reference: para. 52Original Court PDF
Subhash ChandervsUnion Of India & Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in