The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the executive authority in fixing cut-off dates for entitlement of benefits, and the judicial restraint exercised by the court in interfering with such decisions.

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking reimbursement of medical bills amounting to Rs. 1,56,500/- which are stated to have been spent by the petitioner in treatment of his wife.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent in January 1961 and took a voluntary retirement on 12.06.1989. Prior to 1980, the employees of respondent were entitled to medical benefits under CGHS. After 1980, the employees of respondent were entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses, however, no medical benefits were available to employees after their superannuation.

3. The respondent introduced a scheme for providing medical facilities to the ex-employees by providing coverage under a medical insurance scheme administered by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. A circular, introducing the said medical benefit scheme, was issued by respondent on 15.02.1994. In terms of the said circular, the said scheme was available only to employees and their spouses who had retired from services of respondent on or after 01.04.1992.

4. The essential features of the aforementioned scheme were that an insurance cover would be provided to the ex-employees and their spouses which would be extended from year to year. At the material time, the premium was Rs. 1,300/- per person (i.e. Rs. 2,600/- for employee and his spouse). All retired employees who wish to avail the benefit of the said scheme, were required to contribute 15% of the premium.

5. The petitioner’s wife underwent an open heart bypass surgery in February 2005. Thereafter, on 01.08.2005 the petitioner applied for being included in the medical insurance scheme. The petitioner was clearly not covered under the said scheme as the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement prior to 1992. However, the petitioner persuaded the management and was included under the medical insurance scheme from July 2007. The petitioner applied for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner in 2004-05. Since the petitioner’s claim was not accepted, the petitioner has filed this petition in 2011.

6. Essentially, the petitioner’s contention is that the cut off date fixed by respondent for providing the medical cover to the superannuated employees is arbitrary and unreasonable and excluding employees who had superannuated prior to 01.04.1992 is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the writ petition has been filed after a considerable delay and, therefore, ought to be rejected. It is further contended that the scheme was a contributory scheme under which insurance cover was provided to the ex-employees. The respondent was not obliged to reimburse any expenses under the said scheme and, therefore, the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement is without any basis. The respondent further contended that cut off date was a policy decision and, thus, cannot be challenged.

8. The present petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:-

8.1 Firstly, “post retirement contributory medical scheme” was a scheme which entailed medical insurance cover to the ex-employees. The respondent was not obliged to reimburse medical expenses of superannuated employees either under the said scheme or otherwise. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses cannot be made.

8.2 Secondly, the post retirement contributory scheme was introduced for the first time in 1994. The said scheme was stated to be approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent on 30.03.1993 and was made available from 01.04.1992. The petitioner had made no grievance for not being included in the said scheme at the material time. Since the scheme is in a nature of an insurance cover, the petitioner cannot be included after the expenses have been incurred. In order to avail the benefit of insurance cover, it was necessary for the petitioner to have