Welfare schemes must be interpreted pro-employee, and retired employees should have the option to choose the scheme that is more beneficial or affordable.

ORDER :

D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J

With the consent of both the learned counsel, this Writ Appeal itself has been taken up for hearing.

2) This Court has heard Sri W.V.Srinivas, learned senior counsel, on behalf of Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri C. Raghu, the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3) This Writ Appeal is filed questioning the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.09.2022, passed in W.P.No.6794 of 2022.

4) For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as writ petitioner and respondents 1 to 4; as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition.

5) Sri W.V.Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 (present appellants) has argued the matter. According to him there are two schemes provided by the respondent company i.e., Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (for short “RINL”), for its retired employees, one is Group Mediclaim Insurance Scheme and the other is Post Retirement Medical Scheme (PRMS). It is his contention that the new scheme that was introduced by virtue of the Circular No. 2 of 2022 is more beneficial to the retired employees and that the said scheme is introduced in line with the directions of the Union of India. The Union directed that the corpus should be created on the basis of various factors including profitability of the company and then scheme should be offered to the employees. He contends that in the impugned order the clarifications issued by the Department of Public Enterprises were not considered; and that the learned single Judge interfered in the matter of policy and that there is discernable differentiation between the people covered by the scheme and that the word “option” which has been heavily relied upon by the learned single Judge, is wrongly interpreted and the actual perspective is not taken. He also submitted that the option is only with regard to lump sum payment or deferred payment etc., and not for an option to choose between the new scheme or the old scheme. On facts, he also points out that 3,250 out of 3,500 eligible beneficiaries have also joined the new scheme and the RINL have already contributed its corpus towards the same. Implementation of the order, according to the learned senior counsel, was not considered. He relies upon a compilation of nine case law, which is filed and argued that it is a right of the respondent-RINL to frame an appropriate scheme. Therefore, he submits that learned single Judge committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition in the manner that he did.

6) In reply to this, Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-1st respondent submits that the Group Mediclaim Scheme has been in vogue for long and was availed by the bulk of the employees, who have retired after the cutoff date i.e., 01.01.2007, is sought to be suddenly removed by the new scheme. He also points out that new scheme would increase the financial burden on the retired employees, who are all pensioners and they cannot, opt for this higher payments. He points out that the writ petitioners were not challenging the right of the RINL to formulate the new scheme but are actually aggrieved by the fact that the option available to them and the option exercised by them since long is suddenly sought to be taken from them by an Official Memorandum. He points out that the conclusion that is being attacked by the respondent-RINL is the reason why the writ petitioner’s association has approached this Court. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the learned single Judge did not commit any error and that the question framed by the learned single Judge that whether the executives who have separated from the 2nd respondent corporation on or after 01.01.2007 have an option to continue under the old scheme or whether they have to move to the new scheme and cannot seek coverage under the old scheme is the crux of the issue. He submit