Delhi High Court
J.K. Sawhney vs Punjab National Bank on 6 September, 2010
Author: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 437/2010
J.K. SAWHNEY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate.
% Reserved on 26th July, 2010.
Date of Decision : 06th September, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
CM 11563/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
LPA 437/2010
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 19th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.6744/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an employee
of the respondent-Bank and he retired from services on 05th February,
2006. After his retirement, he developed acute heart problem and
incurred expenses of Rs.3,14,487/- on his treatment at Escorts Heart
Institute. The appellant requested for reimbursement of medical
expenses from the respondent-Bank which was declined on the ground
that there was no such scheme for reimbursement of medical expenses
to the retired employees of the respondent-Bank.
3. Mr. Piyush Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the right to health and medical care is an integral part of right to
life which is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. He further submitted that the powers of the High
Court to issue writ of mandamus are of wide import and they must be
available to reach injustice wherever it is found. According to him,
technicalities should not come in the way of granting relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution. He submitted that it is within the
competence of the High Court to direct the respondent-Bank to
formulate a scheme for reimbursement of the medical expenses to the
retired employees of the respondent-Bank. In this context, Mr. Sharma
placed reliance upon Apex Court's decisions in Food Corporation of
India & Ors. Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 100
and Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association vs. State of
Kerala , (2010) 6 SCC 373.
4. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submitted that appellant has no legal right to enforce his claim for grant
of medical reimbursement by approaching this Court in writ
jurisdiction. According to him, the appellant is governed by the
bipartite settlement under which in lieu of absence of any scheme for
reimbursement of medical claims after retirement, neither the appellant
nor the other employees can claim the same.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as having
perused the paper book, we are of the opinion that though it is the
constitutional obligation of the State under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India to safeguard the right to life of every person and
such right is a right to lead healthy life and not a life of animal
existence, but no law mandates that every citizen is entitled to free
medical treatment without any limitation on the amount that can be
claimed as reimbursement. In fact, even serving bank employees are
governed by regulations put in place by the respondent-Bank keeping in
view the financial and economic considerations. In this context, we
may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors.
Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 117 wherein the
Supreme Court observed as under :-
"26. .........Since it is one of the most sacrosanct and
valuable rights of a citizen and equally sacrosanct
sacred obligation of the State, every citizen of this
welfare State looks towards the State for it to perform
its this obligation with top priority including by way
of allocation of sufficient funds. This in turn will not
only secure the right of its citizen to the best of their
satisfaction but in turn will benefit the State in
achieving its social, political and economical goal.
For every return there has to be investment.
Investment needs resources and finances. So even to
protect this sacrosanct right finances are an inherent
requirement. Harnessing such resources needs top
priority.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
29. No State or any country can have unlimited
resources to spend on any of its project. That is why it
only approves its projects to the extent it is feasible.
The same holds good for providing medical facilities
to its citizen including its employees. Provision of
facilities cannot be unlimited. It has to be to the extent
finance permit. If no scale or rate is fixed then in case
private clinics or hospitals increase their rate to
exorbitant scales, the State would be bound to
reimburse the same. Hence we come to the conclusion
that principle of fixation of rate and scale under this
new policy is justified and cannot be held to be
violative of Article 21 or Article 47 of the Constitution
of India.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
31. The next question is whether the modification of
the policy by the State by deleting its earlier decision
of permitting reimbursement at the Escort and other
designated hospital's rate is justified or not? This of
course will depend on the facts and circumstances.
We have already held that this court would not
interfere with any opinion formed by the government
if it is based on relevant facts and circumstances or
based on expert advice.
32. Any State endeavor for giving best possible health
facility has direct co-relation with finances. Every
State for discharging its obligation to provide some
projects to its subject requires finances. Article 41 of
the Constitution gives recognition to this aspect.
'Article 41: Right to work, to educate and to public
assistance in certain cases: The State shall, within the
limits of its economic capacity and development, make
effective provisions for securing the right to work, to
education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age sickness and disablement, and
in other cases of undeserved want'"
(emphasis supplied)
6. Moreover, it is imperative to emphasise that the formulation of a
policy is within the exclusive domain of executive and the Courts
should shy away from issuing directions for formulation of a policy
which has financial, economic and other implications, which at the best
should be left to the wisdom of the executive.
7. Consequently, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge
that it is not for the Court to formulate policies but certainly the Court
can draw attention of the concerned authority to the issue involved so
that appropriate steps can be taken for redressal of the grievances. In
the context, learned Single Judge has rightly suggested that it is for
various trade unions of the bank and the management of the Bank to
make appropriate provisions in their bipartite settlement to make
suitable policy to take care of the health of the retired employees and
for their necessary medical reimbursement. Accordingly, the appeal,
being bereft of merit, is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 06, 2010
Ms/js
