CWP No. 15105 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15105 of 2006 Date of decision: August 25, 2008 Pritam Singh Grewal and another --- Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ---- Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners Ashutosh Mohunta, J. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2005 ( Annexure P-15), vide which their case for grant of fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- has been rejected. The petitioners served under respondent No.2 and had retired in the years 1987 and 1998 respectively. They claim fixed medical allowance in terms of the policy dated 19-12-1997 ( Annexure P3), whereby it has been provided that Central Government Pensioners residing in areas not covered by Central Govt. Health Scheme administered by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and corresponding Health Schemes for the retired employes for meeting expenditure on day-to- CWP No. 15105 of 2006 2 day medical expenses would be granted fixed medical allowance @ Rs.100/- per month. Counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioners was taken into consideration by the department of expenditure and the same has been rejected. It has been contended by Mr. CM Sharma, counsel for the respondents that respondent No.1 had accepted the recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission regarding grant of fixed medical allowance @ Rs.100/- per month to the Govt. pensioners, residing in areas not covered by the Central Government Health Scheme. However, as respondent No.3 had a Contributory Provident Fund scheme for its employees and pension scheme available to the Central Govt. Employees was extended to the employees of the CCRAS only w.e.f. 1-4-1982, as such, the benefits available to the Central Govt. employees are not automatically applicable to the employees of CCRAS. It is further contended that petitioner No.1, who had retired in 1987 has not filed any representation and the present writ petition has also been filed very belatedly and is thus liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Counsel for the respondents further submits that so far as petitioner No.2/Rajinder Kumar Gupta is concerned, he retired in February 1998 and filed his representation in the year 2002 and the present writ petition filed in 2006 is also highly belated. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that service conditions of the employees of autonomous bodies like respondent No.3 are not equal to Central Government Employees and there is no similar recommendation for the employees of autonomous bodies by the 5th Central Pay Commission. Hence the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed. Even otherwise, the present writ petition is highly belated CWP No. 15105 of 2006 3 i.e. having been filed after more than 8 years of their retirement. The same is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well. [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge [Rajan Gupta] Judge August 25, 2008 `ask'