JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. Since all these writ petitions arise out of common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. All these writ petitions seek to challenge common judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby original applications filed by the respondents-applicants have been allowed and the petitioner-National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur has been directed to allow Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month to the respondents-applicants in terms of the Government's Resolution dated 30.09.1997 and Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997, with the arrears, from the date of filing of the original applications.. 3. For the purpose of convenience, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24046/2018, National Institute of Ayurveda v. Radhey Shyam Mathur is taken as leading case and facts of that case are being taken as the basis to decide present matters. 4. Respondent No. 1-Radhey Shyam Mathur filed an Original Application before the Tribunal inter alia claiming Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month as per the aforementioned Resolution dated 30.09.1997 and Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997 and reimbursement for the indoor treatment. Respondent No. 1 retired as the employee of the National Institute of Ayurveda. The services. rendered by him have been treated as the services of the Central Government employees. The Government of India vide order No. 27011/1/182-ISM dated 25.08.1983 approved the introduction and implementation of pension-cum-GPF-cum-Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme including family pension, as contained in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules of 1972'), as amended from time-to-time. This order came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1983. The order was issued with concurrence of the Finance Division vide Dy. No. 1485-Finance II dated 23.04.1983. The Government of India by its resolution sanctioned Fixed Medical Allowance to Central Government Pensioners, who were drawing pension as per the Rules of 1972 and were not covered by CGHS or any other corresponding health scheme. This was allowed as per the GOI P&W Resolution No. 45/86/97-P and G.I. Dept. of Pen. & Pen. Welfare, O.M. No. 45/57/97-P and PW (c) dated 19.12.1997. These orders were further clarified vide order dated 30.12.1998. 5. Case of Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that he at the time of retirement was governed by the Rules of 1972 and was not covered by CGHS or any other corresponding health scheme. of Pen. & Pen. Welfare, O.M. No. 45/57/97-P and PW (c) dated 19.12.1997. These orders were further clarified vide order dated 30.12.1998. 5. Case of Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that he at the time of retirement was governed by the Rules of 1972 and was not covered by CGHS or any other corresponding health scheme. He was therefore entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. Respondent No. 1 submitted representation to the petitioner on 28.06.2014. When the petitioner failed to remedy grievance of Respondent No. 1, he filed Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2015 directed the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Department of AYUSH, New Delhi to decide his representation within three months. Respondent No. 1 accordingly submitted representation on 25.01.2015. This representation was rejected by the petitioner vide order dated 04:03.2015. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 again approached the Tribunal by filing another Original Application. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has allowed the original application filed by Respondent No. 1 with the direction, as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this writ petition. 6. Mr. Anurag Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal as erred in law in allowing the Original Applications filed by the respondents-applicant even though it has in the same judgment held that the petitioner is an autonomous body and is governed by its own constitution and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the decisions taken by its governing body. The Tribunal erred in law in taking order dated 25.08.1983 on record at the time of arguments without providing copy of thereof to the petitioner-institute. It has further erred in law in, allowing the Original Applications on that basis without giving opportunity to the petitioner-institute to rebut the same. The Tribunal to ally misinterpreted Note Sheet dated 25.08.1983 and note sheet dated 08.02.2013, according to which the respondents-applicants are not entitled to get the Fixed Medical Allowance. It is argued that the Tribunal has erred in law in relying upon the judgment dated 16.09.2006 (Reported in 2006 (6) AIR Kar R. 405) rendered by Karnataka High Court in A.B. Colaco S/o. Late H.P.G. Colaco v. Coffee Board and coming to the conclusion that order dated)4.03.2015 is outcome of total non-application of mind and the same is totally erroneous and perverse. The Tribunal has misinterpreted he words "New Autonomous Body" whereas he word, "New" is used for any additional autonomous body, which is apparent from the order itself. The Tribunal failed to consider that Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month and increased amount of medical allowance as per order dated 19.12.1997 is not payable to the respondents-applicants as the Ministry of AYUSH has already considered and examined the issue in detail, in consultation with CGHS Division; Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; Department of Pension of Pensioner's Welfare; Department of Expenditure. Since as per the existing CGHS Policy, no new Autonomous Bodies are being extended he CGHS facilities. Department of Expenditure has also not concurred the proposal. 7. Mr. Anurag Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare) vide Office Memorandum No. 45/57/97-P&PW(C) dated 19.12.1997 specifically mentioned that fixed medical allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month is applicable to Central Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners residing in areas not covered by the Central Government Health Scheme. The Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner institute is an autonomous body, which runs as per its Service Rules, Memorandum of Association, Bye-Laws, Rules and Regulations. Implementation of any facility having financial implication requires prior approval of the Nodal Ministry of AYUSH and Ministry of Finance and CGHS Division. For implementation of the Medical Allowances to the retired pensioners of the petitioner-institute, the sanction of the Ministry of AYUSH, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and Government of India is mandatory. The proposal with regard to the subject-matter raised by the respondents-applicants was referred to the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Finance vide I.D. 240/E.V./2013 dated 08-02-2013, which has not concurred as the pensioners of the petitioner-institute, are not entitled to CGHS facilities as serving employees of the petitioner-institute. The Tribunal failed to consider that the application filed by Respondent No. 1 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 8. Mr. P.N. Jatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-applicants opposed the writ petitions and supported the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal failed to consider that the application filed by Respondent No. 1 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 8. Mr. P.N. Jatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-applicants opposed the writ petitions and supported the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 9. Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal in Para 9 of the judgment has noted that the Government of India came out with an order dated 25.08.1983 and introduced a Pension-cum-GPF-cum-Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, including Family Pension Scheme as contained in the Rules of 1972 for the employees of the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur. The same scheme was made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.1983. For convenience, Para 9 of the judgment is extracted below: "9. There is no dispute that the National Institute of Ayurveda is an Autonomous Body and being an Autonomous Body, it is governed by its own constitution and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the decisions taken by its governing body. However, the fact remains that the Government of India came out with an order dated 25.08.1983 and introduced a Pension-cum-GPF-cum-Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, including Family Pension Scheme as contained in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the employees of the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur. The said Scheme was made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.1983. A perusal of the Scheme reveals that the same shall be financed out of pension fund to be credited from the fund already available with the Institute on account of employees' contribution to CPF together with interest that may accrue on investment of such funds and other internal revenues of the Institute, and no additional grants for augmenting the Pension Fund will be released by the Government of India. While following the said order dated 25.08.1983 issued by the Government of India, the applicants in all these Original Applications were retired by the National Institute of Ayurveda under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Yet another admitted fact that the serving employees of the National Institute of Ayurveda are not entitled to the CGHS facilities also cannot be ignored. As per the document Annexure R-2 placed on record by Respondent No. 1 along with the reply, serving employees of the Institute are covered under CS (MA) Rules, 1944. Yet another admitted fact that the serving employees of the National Institute of Ayurveda are not entitled to the CGHS facilities also cannot be ignored. As per the document Annexure R-2 placed on record by Respondent No. 1 along with the reply, serving employees of the Institute are covered under CS (MA) Rules, 1944. The said document further divulges that the Fixed Medical Allowance cannot be made applicable to the pensioners of the Institute and the same is applicable to other retired Central Government officials. It appears that non-entitlement of the Fixed Medical Allowance to a retiree of the National Institute of Ayurveda is laid down by the respondents while viewing the provisions of Note 2 (iv) sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, which makes a provision for non-applicability of the said rules upon the retired Government officials. Whereas, the said Note has already been held to be unconstitutional by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of A.B. Colaco S/o. Late H.P.D. Colaco v. Coffeed Board (2006 (6) AIR Kar R 405) (supra). Thus, in our considered view, the retirees of the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur cannot be held to be disentitled to Fixed Medical Allowance as admittedly the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 are applicable upon the serving employees of the said Institute and the provision as contained in Note 2 (iv) sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the said Rules disentitling the retirees from the protection of said Rules has already been held to be unconstitutional by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of A.B. Colaco (supra). A perusal of the Government's Resolution dated 30.09.1997 (Annexure A/2) reveals that after the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, the pensioners residing in an area not covered by CGHS are entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month for their day-to-day medical expenses. Since the applicants in all these Original Applications are not covered by CGHS Scheme, therefore, we hold that they are entitled to get Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month in terms of Resolution dated 30.09.1997. It also requires to be noticed here that as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997 issued by the Government of India, the payment of Medical Allowance is now counted for as a part of sub-head under 'Pension and other Retirement Benefits'. 100/- per month in terms of Resolution dated 30.09.1997. It also requires to be noticed here that as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997 issued by the Government of India, the payment of Medical Allowance is now counted for as a part of sub-head under 'Pension and other Retirement Benefits'. This Tribunal while disposing of Original Application No. 14/2015 had issued a direction to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to consider the applicants representations and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the provisions of law. A perusal of the order dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure A/1) passed by the respondents pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal clearly reveals that the same is the outcome of total non-application of mind as while passing the said order, reliance has been placed on the existing CGHS policy laying down therein that no new Autonomous Body can be extended CGHS facilities. It is not understandable that how the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, which is admittedly decades old an Institution, has been termed as new Autonomous Body in terms of CGHS policy disentitling the retirees from the Fixed Medical Allowance." 10. Upon examining the afore-extracted para 9 of the impugned judgment, it would be evident that the Tribunal noted that as per Annexure-R/2 dated 08.02.2013, scheme of the Fixed Medical Allowance was made applicable to Government servants residing in an area not covered by CGHS. Since serving employees of the petitioner-Institute are not entitled to CGHS facilities. As per order dated 08.02.2013, when serving employees of the petitioner-Institute are covered under CS(MA) Rules, 1994. The order further divulges that the Fixed Medical Allowance cannot be made applicable to the pensioners of the petitioner-Institute. But the Tribunal noted that the said note has already been held to be unconstitutional by the Karnataka High Court in A.B. Colaco S/o. Late H.P.G. Colaco v. Coffee Board (2006 (6) AIR Kar R. 405) (supra). The Tribunal therefore held that since the aforesaid note has already been declared unconstitutional by the Karnataka High Court, retired employees of the petitioner-institute cannot be held disentitled to Fixed Medical Allowance. The provisions as contained in Note 2(iv) sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1994, as it stood originally, provided for non-applicability of the said rules upon the retired Government officials. The provisions as contained in Note 2(iv) sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1994, as it stood originally, provided for non-applicability of the said rules upon the retired Government officials. This rule was subjected to challenge before the Karnataka High Court in A.B. Colaco S/o. Late H.P.G. Colaco v. Coffee Board (supra) and the same has been declared unconstitutional in the following terms: "7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned Annexures "C" and "D" are quashed. Note 2(iv) sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 is held unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable against the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to Post-retirement Medical reimbursement/facility or medical allowance both towards hospitalisation and non-hospitalisation expenses from respondents Nos. 1 to 4 under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 as applicable to him while in service." 11. In view of above, the impediment for not extending the benefit of Fixed Medical Allowance to the respondents-applicants has ceased to exist. The Tribunal also noted that the Government's Resolution dated 30.09.1997 reveals that after the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, the pensioners residing in an area not covered by CGHS are entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month for their day-to-day medical expenses. Since, the respondents-applicants herein are not covered by CGHS Scheme, therefore, they are entitled to get Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per month in terms of Resolution dated 30.09.1997. View of the Tribunal also gets strengthened from Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997, according to which the payment of Medical Allowance is now counted for as a part of sub-head under 'Pension and other Retirement Benefits'. It was in this view of the matter that the Tribunal held that order rejecting representation of the respondents-applicants by the petitioner-institute was result of non-application of mind as it was based on existing CGHS Policy laying down therein that no new Autonomous Body can be extended CGHS facilities. The Tribunal further held that it is not understandable that how the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur which is admittedly decades old institution, has been termed as new Autonomous Body in terms of CGHS policy disentitling the retirees from the Fixed Medical Allowance. 12. We are not persuaded to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further held that it is not understandable that how the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur which is admittedly decades old institution, has been termed as new Autonomous Body in terms of CGHS policy disentitling the retirees from the Fixed Medical Allowance. 12. We are not persuaded to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal. In view of above, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. There is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. 13. All the stay applications and pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. 14. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected writ petition.