Union Of INDIA vs. National Federation Of Pensioners Of Ayush Councils (Nfpac)

Facts

The Union of India and its various AYUSH research councils (petitioners) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 22, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. The CAT had directed the extension of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) benefits to retired employees and family pensioners of the National Federation of Pensioners of AYUSH Councils (NFPAC), the respondent. The petitioners argued that the respondent Federation was not covered under the CGHS and that retired employees had not contributed to the scheme, making the extension of benefits unwarranted. They contended that a previous CAT order in a similar case concerning the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine (CCRUM) was erroneously decided without considering these facts.

Held

The High Court held that the CAT was justified in allowing O.A. No. 29 of 2023 in favour of the respondent-Federation. The Court noted that the CAT had previously adjudicated a similar issue in O.A. No. 692 of 2017, holding that retired employees of the Unani stream under the Ministry of AYUSH are entitled to CGHS benefits. This order was upheld by the High Court in W.P. No. 5298 of 2021. The Court reasoned that if the petitioners' arguments were accepted, it would result in differential treatment of similarly situated persons, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the respondent-Federation also falls under the Ministry of AYUSH, the Tribunal's decision was deemed correct. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioners an additional eight weeks to comply with the Tribunal's orders, during which period the Tribunal was to refrain from proceeding with contempt proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in allowing O.A. No. 29 of 2023 by directing the extension of CGHS benefits to retired employees and family pensioners of the National Federation of Pensioners of AYUSH Councils (NFPAC), considering that they have not contributed to the CGHS scheme and are not covered under it? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the CAT's previous decision in O.A. No. 692 of 2017 concerning CCRUM was erroneous because it failed to appreciate that retired employees had not contributed to the CGHS and that the Federation was not covered under the scheme. They contended that extending benefits without contribution would be unjustified and would cause irreparable loss. They relied on the fact that the previous order was challenged in the High Court in W.P. No. 5298 of 2021, though it was dismissed. Respondent's arguments: The respondent Federation argued that the CAT had previously decided a similar matter concerning CCRUM, and that order was upheld by the High Court. They contended that the AYUSH Ministry, which encompasses various Indian medicine systems, should provide CGHS benefits to its retired employees, and differential treatment would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.