Disposed

Union of India v. The Registrar

Madras HC8 Nov 2018WP/7977/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order on CGHS facility extension for retired employees of Statutory/Autonomous bodies. The Court noted that the issue was already resolved by a Government Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2018, rendering further judicial consideration unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no costs. Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2018 placed on record.

Union of India Vs The Registrar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.7977 of 2015

¶7

1.Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirmal Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Additional Director (CGHS),
E-2, 1 st Floor, Rajaji Bhavan,
CGO Complex, Besant Nagar,
Chennai 600 080. .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.M.Krishnamoorthy
House No.L/31D, Bharathidasan
Colony, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the 1^st respondent made in O.A.No.1105 of 2012 dated 22.07.2014 and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners: Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Asst. Sol. Genl.

¶10

When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

the issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department through Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2018 and therefore, nothing more is required to be considered. For better appreciation, we place on record the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2018, which reads as follows:

¶13

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶14

Subject:Extension of CGHS facilities to the retired employoees of Statutory/Autonomous bodies, whose serving employees are already covered under CGHS – Clarification.

¶15

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry's OM No.S.11011/15/2013-CGHS(P) dated 10^th June, 2014 vide which CGHS facilities were extended to the retired employees of ABs/SBs, whose serving employees are already covered under CGHS and to state that the condition mentioned in Para 3(a) of this Ministry's OM No.S.11011/15/2013-CGHS (P), dated 10^th June, 2014 is modified to the extent as under:-

¶16

“CGHS Facilities will be extended to the retired employees of the Statutory/Autonomous bodies on costto-cost basis. They will be entitled to OPD facilities and medicines from CGHS Wellness Centres in all CGHS covered Cities.”

¶17

Other conditions mentioned in the OM No.S.11011/ 15/2013-CGHS (P), dated the 10^th June, 2014 will remain unchanged.

¶18

This OM will be effective from the date of its issue.

¶19

This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.

¶20

Recording the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

sra

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

¶27

W.P.No.7977 of 2015

¶28

RV(Co) CS/07/12/2018

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Union of India v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bernard Antony D sylva Vs Union of India rep by the

R.Ravimaran Vs Union Of India

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs Sr.P.Geetha