' AKBAR M. MEMON, (MEMBER).---Appellant hereinabove, who is a retired CGO (ANSO PN) having rendered service of 42 years and was being paid from Defence Service Estimates, has challenged the order of the respondent dated 6-1-1999, whereby he was declined post retirement medical facilities for self and for his family on retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant on retirement from the Navy Department was given to understand that he was entitled to indoor/outdoor medical treatment for self and for his family on the same basis, which were being provided to him while he was in service from Military Hospital on the authority of Government policy decision through Ministry of Defence. On approaching the authorities, he was informed that such a facility could only be made available to those who are in service while .Those who stood retired can get treatment from Central Government Hospitals and not from Military Hospitals, hence this appeal after filing appropriate departmental appeal which was addressed to the respondents.
3. The respondents, on notice, filed parawise comments where they have totally denied the claim of the appellant and have stated that, no doubt, there existed the rules till 1996 and 1990 but subsequently the said rules have been changed vide Office Memorandum No,F.8-6/93-PSDM, dated 24-4-1993, whereby the Military Hospitals and Combined Military Hospitals have been deleted from the definition of Government Hospitals. At the same time, it has also been stated in the comments that the treatment of Military Hospital is governed by RM'SA, Vols.I and II 1978 issued by Ministry of Defence and there is no provision of medical treatment to retired civilian paid by Defence Service Estimates in the said Regulation. In the comments, reference has also been made to Ministry of Health Letter No,F.2524/62-MF, dated 13-10-1963 where it has clearly been mentioned that treatment will be provided in Hospitals and Dispensaries maintained by Central Governments and Provincial Government and said notification was also made applicable to Defence paid civilian officials under Ministry of Defence Letter No,F-513-D-9/A/66, dated 15-3-1966.
4. The appellant, who has argued that appeal himself, at the very outset has referred us to the service certificate which makes a mention about the privileges for retired civilian officials and the same reads as under:-- "EXTRACT FROM SERVICE CERTIFICATE PRIVILEGES FOR RETIRED CIVILIAN OFFICERS MEDICAL TREATMENT".
' Free indoor/outdoor medical treatment for self and family to the same extent as admissible while in service.
' Authority: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Health and Population Planning (Health Division)
Office Memorandum No,F-2524/63-MF, dated 12-10-1963, reproduced in Government of Pakistan Ministry of Defence (Army Branch), Letter No,F-513- D-9/A/66, dated 15-3-1966.
' Certified that the particulars are correct according to the record held at Naval Headquarters."
' After referring this service certificate, the appellant has contended that at the time of retirement on 14-4-1994, he was given to understand that he will be provided the same medical facilities, which he was availing before his retirement. At the same time he has been contended that in identical case of Abdul Wahid Alvi, a Bench of this Tribunal and allowed to appeal bearing No,175-K of 1997 on 22-10-1997. Adding more to his arguments, he has contended that the respondents then challenged the said judgment before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Petition No,173-K of 1998, where the judgment of the Tribunal was not set aside, and since the judgment of the Tribunal is still holding the field, he deserves the same concession on the rule of consistency.
5. Mr. Niaz A. Khan, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents alongwith D.R. Li Cdr. S.H. Khan, has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and had contended that the perusal of the contents of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court show that the same was confined to singular case of Abdul Wahid Alvi and has referred us to the entire portion of the judgment. In such a situation, Mr. Khan has contended that since the concession was granted only in a single case, it impliedly appears that the judgment of this Tribunal was set aside and no case has been made out for, extending the concession even on the rule of consistency. He has contended that the particular rule whereby medical facility was being provided to retired civilian officials has been amended on 24-4-1993 and the certificate on which the appellant is placing reliance is an old pro forma which still contains Rules of 1996 which has not yet been scored out.
6. After hearing the appellant and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, we have gone through the entire appeal file and so also various documents filed alongwith Memo. Of Appeal and also the comments. We have also been able to drive the benefit of judgment rendered by this Tribunal bearing No,175-K/97 and so also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No,173-K of 1998.
7. Before we intend to proceed further, it will be advantageous to reproduce the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No,173-K of 1998 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held:- "The parties have settled the dispute vide joint application "Mark-A", which reads thus:-- "The petitioners are willing to provide Medical Treatment to respondent and his wife in PNS Shifa/Naval Hospital as a special case. This concession should not be treated as precedence for other Pakistan Navy Civilian Employees.
(2) In view, of the above, the petition is converted into an appeal and disposed of in terms of the above settlement with no order as to costs."
8. No doubt, the judgment rendered by a Bench of this Tribunal has virtually not been set aside but in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that on merits the appellant has no case, because of the fact that the rules have altogether been changed as is apparent from O.M. No, F.8-6 of 1993 PSDM, dated 24-4-1993, Annexure-F, page 31, available on file.
This being the situation, we are afraid, we will not be able to grant any relief to the appellant as we are bound by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as is required under Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The appellant is, however, at liberty to get such treatment from the Central Government Hospitals/Dispensaries, if he so desires.
9. In view of the above discussion, appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties concerned be informed accordingly through registered post.