Facts
The petitioner, who had retired as a District and Sessions Judge in Uttar Pradesh, subsequently served as a Member (Judicial) of the NCLT and a Member (Technical) of the NCLAT.
Source reference: pp.1–2, paras. 2–7During those tenures, he received medical benefits under the CGHS. After vacating office on 20 February 2022 upon attaining 67 years of age, he sought renewal of his CGHS card, but the respondents declined, stating that he drew his pension from the Government of Uttar Pradesh and was not eligible for a CGHS pensioner card.
Source reference: pp.1–2, paras. 2–7He petitioned under Article 226 seeking continuation of CGHS benefits and offered to pay the required contribution.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1; p.3, para. 9Issues
Whether a former NCLT/NCLAT Member who received medical facilities during tenure under the applicable service rules is entitled to continued CGHS coverage after vacating office
Source reference: pp.2–3, paras. 6, 9–11Whether a former Member who draws a pension from the Government of Uttar Pradesh may obtain a CGHS pensioner card by paying the prescribed contribution
Source reference: pp.2–4, paras. 7, 12–14Law Applied
Rule 10 of the NCLAT (Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and other Members) Rules, 2015 entitles the Chairperson and Members to medical facilities under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 in their capacity as office-holders; it does not provide for continuation of those facilities after tenure.
Source reference: p.3, paras. 9, 11Post-retirement CGHS coverage is a distinct benefit subject to the scheme’s eligibility criteria, which include pensioners of the Central Government, other than pensioners belonging to the Railways and Armed Forces.
Source reference: p.4, para. 12Willingness to pay the prescribed contribution does not, by itself, satisfy those eligibility requirements.
Source reference: p.4, para. 13Reasoning
The Court distinguished the medical facilities available to the petitioner while serving as an NCLT/NCLAT Member from post-tenure CGHS coverage.
Source reference: p.3, para. 11Rule 10 addressed benefits during membership and did not confer a continuing entitlement after office was vacated.
Source reference: p.3, para. 11The petitioner’s earlier receipt of CGHS facilities therefore did not establish eligibility for a pensioner card.
Source reference: p.4, paras. 12–15Since he received his pension from the Government of Uttar Pradesh, rather than the Central Government, he did not meet the stated CGHS pensioner eligibility criterion; his willingness to contribute could not cure that deficiency.
Source reference: p.4, paras. 12–15Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to continued CGHS benefits after vacating office and found no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226.
The petition was dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.
Source reference: p.5, paras. 17–18Original Court PDF
Vijai Pratap SinghvsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
