Facts
The 155 applicants are Group-C civilian employees (including Senior Material Assistants, Tradesman Mates, and Firemen) serving at the 16 Field Ammunition Depot (FAD) under the Ministry of Defence
Source reference: p. 7The applicants alleged that their Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) was illegally stopped effective January 2011 based on a Ministry of Health Family Welfare Office Memorandum dated 03.06.2015
Source reference: p. 9, para 3(c), 6They claimed entitlement to medical benefits under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944
Source reference: p. 8, para 3(b)The applicants asserted they are similarly situated to the litigants in O.A./350/0191/2019, where the Tribunal granted relief that was subsequently implemented by the department in July 2025
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 7They submitted a joint representation on 30.07.2025, which remained pending
Source reference: p. 10, para 8Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the restoration and payment of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) with effect from January 2011 in accordance with the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944
Source reference: p. 8-9, para 32. Whether the applicants are entitled to parity with the judgment delivered in O.A./350/0191/2019
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 7Law Applied
The court primarily applied the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, which govern the medical benefits and allowances for central government civilian employees
Source reference: p. 8, para 3(b)It further relied on Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the maintainability of applications
Source reference: p. 8, para 3Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding joint prosecution
Source reference: p. 9, para 4the principle of parity was invoked based on the Tribunal's previous order in O.A. 191/2019, which established the right to FMA for similarly situated employees
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 7Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the core grievance involved the arbitrary stoppage of FMA and the demand for parity with a previously decided and implemented matter (O.A. 191/2019)
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 7The Single Bench, acting under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, determined that no complicated questions of law were involved
Source reference: p. 8, para 1Consequently, the Tribunal found that inviting a formal reply from the respondents would serve no "fruitful purpose" and would cause unnecessary delay
Source reference: p. 10, para 9The court reasoned that the administrative authorities must first evaluate the applicants' pending representation in the context of existing statutory rules and the specific judicial precedents cited by the applicants
Source reference: p. 10, para 8, 10Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application for joint prosecution
the Tribunal disposed of the matter by directing the respondents to consider the applicants' joint representation dated 30.07.2025
Source reference: p. 10, para 10The respondents were ordered to treat the O.A. as part of the representation and pass a reasoned order within 90 days of receipt of the court’s order
Source reference: p. 10, para 10No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 10, para 11Original Court PDF
Raja BhowalvsDEFENCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in