Railway authorities must consider fixed medical allowance claims upon submission of prescribed documents.

Md. Setab Ali, a former Trackman, was granted compassionate allowance with effect from 1 December 2005 but was not paid Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA).

He claimed that he lived more than 2.5 km from the nearest Railway Health Unit and did not use its OPD facilities, and that he had submitted the prescribed undertakings to claim FMA under Railway Board circulars.

During the proceeding, Setab Ali died on 29 July 2022, and his widow, Arjina Bibi, was substituted as applicant.

The Railway Administration stated that it had requested documents to process the claim, while the State Bank of India, as pension disbursing authority, maintained that it could not release FMA without authorization from the Railway authorities.

Whether the substituted applicant could pursue the claim for FMA allegedly due to the deceased pensioner.

Whether FMA could be released without the prescribed documents and sanction or authorization from the Railway authorities.

Whether the Railway authorities should consider the claim for FMA, including any admissible arrears, and authorize payment.

The Tribunal referred to Railway Board Circulars RBE No. 168/2009 dated 15 September 2009 and RBE No. 146/2014 dated 19 December 2014, and the policy under which pensioners or family pensioners residing more than 2.5 km from the nearest Railway Health Unit and not availing OPD facilities may receive FMA, subject to submission of the prescribed undertaking.

It also noted the Railway Board guideline PC-V/98/1/7/1/1 dated 1 March 2004, concerning the documents required to process the claim, and Corrigendum RBE No. 117/2011 dated 26 August 2011, under which claims by pensioners whose pension was sanctioned after 21 April 1999 were to be submitted to the Pension Sanctioning Authority.

The Bank, as Pension Disbursing Authority, could not disburse FMA without Railway authorization.

The Tribunal accepted that FMA eligibility depended on the stated residence and OPD-use conditions and submission of the prescribed undertaking, but found that the claim had not been formally processed and that the Bank required authorization from the Railway authorities.

Since the Railway Administration had indicated that it would process the claim upon receipt of the required documents, the Tribunal directed the widow to submit or resubmit them and required the Railway authority to determine eligibility under the applicable rules.

It did not itself find the applicant eligible or fix an unconditional entitlement to arrears.

The substituted applicant was to submit the required documents and FMA undertaking to Respondent No. 5 within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Railway authority was to examine the claim and, if the applicant was eligible, issue the necessary sanction or authorization within eight weeks of receiving the documents, including any arrears admissible from the date of undertaking or eligibility up to the original pensioner’s death, and FMA applicable thereafter.

The Bank and CPPC were then to disburse the authorized amounts within four weeks of receiving the authorization.

No order as to costs was made.