By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 28.2.2007 and 21.5.2007 passed by the respondent bank and also seeks directions to direct the respondent bank to reimburse the medical bill of Rs. 3,14,487/-of the petitioner and also to formulate a scheme for reimbursement of medical expenses of the retired employees of the bank.

2. Brief facts of the case as set out by the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent bank and retired on 5.2.06. He developed an acute heart problem and was admitted to Escorts Hearts Institute where he incurred an expense of Rs. 3,14,487 and requested the respondent bank for the reimbursement of the same which was declined by the Bank on the ground that there was no such scheme of reimbursement of medical expenses to the retired employees. On 2.4.07, the petitioner filed a writ petition (C.W.P 2473/07) in this court whereby the bank was directed to consider the fresh representation of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses, which representation, on 21.5.07, was rejected by the respondent bank. The petitioner on 12.6.07 again made a representation and on 18.8.07 filed Misc. Application for revival of the writ petition No. 2473/07 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. Hence ,in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3 . Mr. Piyush Sharma, counsel for the petitioner contended that the decision of the respondent bank to deny the medical reimbursement to the petitioner is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, such a decision of the bank is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the grant of medical reimbursement by the bank to the retired whole time Directors (Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Directors) is discriminatory vis-à-vis all other retired bank employees including the petitioner and there is no intelligible differentia to carve out a different classification of whole time Directors to grant them the medical benefits while to deny the same to the other retired bank employees. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court while exercising power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the respondent to grant such medical benefits even in the absence of any policy and rules. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the service conditions of the retired employees are not governed by the bipartite settlements and, therefore, absence of any such provision for the grant of medical reimbursement in bipartite settlement would not debar the petitioner to claim medical reimbursement under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. All India Sainik School Employees Association Vs. The Defence Minister Cum Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society New Delhi & Ors. 1989 AIR SC-0-88.

2. Consumer Education & Reserch Centre & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 42.

3. State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla etc. JT 1997(1)SC 416.

4.Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Ors. (1998) SCC-8-1.

5. Milap Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2004 (76) DRJ 126.

6. Rakesh Bedi Vs. Air India Ltd. & Anr. 2004 (76) DRJ 375.

7. Keshav Kishore Sharma vs MCD 2005 (8)) DRJ 180.

8.Mahendra Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2005 (117) DLT 204.

9. The Registrar School of Planning & Architecture Vs. SPA Retired Employees Welfare Association Civil Appeal No. LPA 490/2004 dated 2.2.2004.

10. Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association & Ors. Vs.Union of India & Ors.