Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 10710
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU, Tara Vitasta Ganju, J
S.P. MEDIRATTA & ORS – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS – Respondent
LPA-904/2013
For the Appellant :Mr. Hitesh Bachan, Ms. Anju Jain & Mr. Rabi Karmakar, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mr. Y. Shukla, Mr. T. Yasin, Mr. A. Khandelwal, Mr. Farman Ali & Mr. Ayushman, Advs. for R-1,3,4&5. Mr. Ankul S. Kulkarni & Mr. Varun Kanwal, Advs. for R-2.
The court upheld the principle that policy decisions, including the extension of benefits, can only be challenged if they contravene specific legal frameworks and are deemed arbitrary.
Headnote:
CGH Scheme - Statutory Body Employees - The court upheld the decision to not extend the benefits of the CGH Scheme to the retired employees of a statutory body under the administrative control of the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, due to resource constraints including financial and logistical limitations.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants, retired employees of a statutory body, sought benefits of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGH Scheme) post-retirement, which were denied. They contended that the denial was illegal and unjustified, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the decision to not extend the CGH Scheme benefits to the Appellants was a policy decision due to resource constraints, including financial and logistical limitations. The Court declined to interfere with the decision, upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order, and dismissed the Appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of post-retiral medical benefits to retired employees of a statutory body and the alleged violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the decision to not extend the benefits of the CGH Scheme to the Appellants was a policy decision due to resource constraints, including financial and logistical limitations. The Court declined to interfere with the decision, upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision to not extend the benefits of the CGH Scheme to the retired employees of the statutory body.
JUDGEMENT
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellants impugning an order dated 05.09.2013 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Petition filed by the Petitioners/Appellants praying that they should be granted benefits of the Central Government Health Scheme, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as “CGH Scheme”], was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The Petitioners [10 in number] were the erstwhile employees of Page 2 of 16 Respondent No.2, the Central Silk Board [hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.2/CSB”] who have since retired. The Respondent No.2/CSB is a statutory body under the administrative control of the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India/Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2/CSB was established in 1948 under the Central Silk Board Act, 1948 and their employees draw salary and their pensions from the consolidated fund of the Government of India.
3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.03.2014 admitted this Appeal. The Appeal was thereafter dismissed in default for non- prosecution on 26.09.2019 and subsequently, restored on 18.10.2023 and heard by this Court.
4. It is the case of the Appellants, that Respondent No.2/CSB is a statutory body and its employees are employees of the Central Government. The fundamental rules of the Central Government being the Central Government Services Rules, Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules and other such rules apply to the employees of the Respondent No.2/CSB. During their tenure with the Respondent No.2/CSB, the Appellants are given the benefit of the CGH Scheme. However, post-retirement, the CGH Scheme and Rules do not apply to the Appellants, thus denying them medical benefits in their old age. The Appellants contend that denying them post- retiral medical benefits is illegal and unjustified and is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
4.1 It was contended that Respondent No.2/CSB functions under the administrative control of Respondent No.1 and the pension of retired Page 3 of 16 employees is as sanctioned from the consolidated fund of Government of India. Although, Respondent No.2/CSB has adopted the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 [hereinafter referred to as “CSMA Rules”] with the approval of Respondent No.1, these rules do not apply to retired employees of Respondent No.2/CSB. It is further contended that on more than one occasion, Respondent No.3/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had addressed communications to the Government requesting them to extend the insurance scheme called Central Government Employees and Pensioners Healthcare Insurance Scheme to the Appellants as well. However, on account of the fact that no approval has been received for the same, no benefits could be extended to the employees retired from Respondent No.2/CSB.
5. It is contended by Respondent No.2/CSB that they are principally in agreement for providing medical facilities and adopting CGH Scheme for their retired employees. In this regard, on 24.05.2006, Respondent No.2/CSB had also sent its proposal to Respondent No.1 to extend the CGH Scheme to its pensioners. However, since this proposal dated 24.05.2006 was rejected by Respondent No.1 on 03.08.2006, Respondent No.2/CSB are unable to extend the benefits to its retired employees.
5.1 Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have also filed their affidavits before this Court wherein it is stated that the CGH Scheme is available only in 25 cities in the country and the retired government employees not staying in those 25 cities are not entitled to CGH Scheme and instead get a fixed medical allowance to take care of their medical needs. It is further contended that although initially CGH Scheme intended to be only a Page 4 of 16 scheme for employees in and around Delhi by extending coverage to various cities, the CGH Scheme facilities are already overextended. It was therefore, dec
