1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner.

2. A conspectus of facts as set out by the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was serving as District Employment Officer, North-West, Kirby Place, Delhi Cantt and retired on 30th April, 2001. On 2.4.2005, the petitioner got a heart attack and was admitted in Amar Leela Hospital, Janak Puri, New Delhi and was discharged on 7.4.2005. The petitioner had paid Rs. 18,000/-to the said Hospital on his discharge and had also spent Rs. 1274/-for the purchase of medicines. But, yet again on 8.4.2005 the petitioner suffered severe chest pain and breathlessness and was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and underwent a by pass surgery on 9.4.2005 and paid an amount of Rs. 1,25,032/-towards the bill raised by the said hospital. On 2.5.2005, the petitioner filed an application with the respondent no.2 requesting them to issue medical facility card and an amount of Rs. 9000/-was deposited by the petitioner towards subscription money. Thereafter, the medical facility card was issued to the petitioner and on 5.7.2005, the petitioner moved an application to the District Employment Officer (NW) for reimbursement of his medical bills which vide order dated 29.8.2005 was rejected. Again, on 17.3.2006 the petitioner moved an application which was disallowed vide letter dated 28.7.2006, and yet again on 22.8.2006, the petitioner moved an application which was dismissed vide letter dated 9.11.2006. Hence feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has now approached this court for relief by way of filing of the present petition.

3. On the last date of hearing, Ms. Sonia Sharma, counsel appearing for Govt. of NCT of Delhi took an adjournment on the ground that the respondent shall pay the necessary amount towards the medical reimbursement of the petitioner before the next date. Ms. Sonia Sharma today submits that such instructions were given to her by Mr. Vijay Sharma, Employment Officer, employed with respondents No. 2 and 3. Today, Mr. Umrao Singh, Employment Officer and Mr. A.K. Sharma, Superintendent with respondent No. 1 submit that under the relevant rules, the respondents are not obliged to grant the medical reimbursement to the petitioner. Ms. Sonia Sharma, counsel further submits that under the revised scheme announced by the Delhi Government vide office memorandum dated 25th October, 2007 it was for the petitioner to have opted for the scheme and once having not become a member of the said scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to the medical reimbursement. Counsel further submits that the scheme is prospective in nature and the same would be effective once an employee becomes a member of the scheme and not otherwise. The contention of counsel for the respondent is that since the petitioner on his retirement failed to opt for the said scheme, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the same.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of V.K. Jagdhari vs Union of India & Ors. 125(2005) DLT 636. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Som Dutt Sharma 118 (2005) DLT 144(DB) and S.K. Sharma vs Union of India and Anr. 2002 (64) DRJ 620.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties.

6. The issue is no more res integra as in the case of S.K. Sharma (supra), this Court clearly held that the petitioner after getting retired cannot be denied the benefit of the medical reimbursement simply because of the fact that he did not opt for the said scheme. In this case also the claim of the employee was rejected on the ground that he was not covered under the CGHS Rule not being a part of the scheme but still a retired