Delhi High Court
S.P.Mediratta And Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2701/2013
% 5th September, 2013
S.P.MEDIRATTA AND ORS. ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anju Jain and Mr. Hitesh Sachar,
Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Adv. for R-1,
3,4 and 5.
Mr. Gireesh Kumar and Mr. Ankur
S.Kulkarni, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 12407/2013 (delay in filing the counter-affidavit)
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
delay in filing the counter-affidavit is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
WPC 2701/2013 Page 1 of 5
WP(C) 2701/2013
1. By this writ petition, petitioners who are retired employees of
the Central Silk Board-respondent no.2 pray that they should be granted
benefits of Central Government Health Scheme (in short „CGHS‟).
2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed their counter-affidavits. As
per these counter-affidavits, though the employer does not seem to very
strenuously contest the claim of the petitioners however, the Central
Government has stated that benefits of the scheme cannot be given to the
retired employees of respondent no.2. I may note that the respondent no.2
functions as per finances which are granted by the Central Government and
which is their sole source of finances.
3. In a utopian society everyone must get equal benefits, however,
in this real world each autonomous organization has to run as per the
finances which are available and sanctioned to it. Courts have repeatedly
held that decisions of the administrative authorities with respect to finances
should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts because organizations
know best how to use their available finances. In this regard, the Supreme
Court in the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workman,
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 has held that
WPC 2701/2013 Page 2 of 5
Courts should not give directions for fixing of a particular pay-scale or for
creation of sanctioned posts or for regularization of employees and so on,
because the same will put financial burden on the employers which the
Courts cannot impose. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are as
under:-
"16. We are afraid that the Labour Court and the High Court have passed
their orders on the basis of emotions and sympathies, but cases in court have to
be decided on legal principles and not on the basis of emotions and sympathies.
18. In State of M.P. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey this Court held that a post
must be created and/or sanctioned before filling it up. If an employee is not
appointed against a sanctioned post he is not entitled to any scale of pay. In our
opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the
present case also.
37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive
functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General. Hence, the court cannot create
a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the
respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular
employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate
to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of
powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, to, must know its limits.
40. The Courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach
into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment
on these posts, regularisation, fixing pay scales, continuation in service,
promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improver
for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional cases. The
relevant case-law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the
Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. Of
Police and we fully agree with the views expressed therein." (underlining added)
WPC 2701/2013 Page 3 of 5
4. Since in the present case, the Central Government is refusing to
provide finances, and therefore, respondent no.2 is not able to give the
CGHS benefits to the petitioners, I cannot issue such directions as prayed for
by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the
judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of President,
CCRH Scientists Welfare Association Vs. Union of India 2011 (179) DLT
21 to argue that all employees of autonomous organizations are
automatically in view of this judgment entitled to be granted CGHS benefits.
I cannot agree with the interpretation as it is sought to be given by the
counsel for the petitioner on the ratio of the judgment because paras 3 and 4
make it clear that the employees were granted benefits inasmuch as during
the period of service i.e before their retirement, they had been given CGHS
benefits, and denial of CGHS benefits would have been against the service
regulations which specifically provided for such benefits to the employees. I
may also state that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not refer to
the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in the case of I.D.P.L. (Supra)
which directs that Courts cannot impose financial burden upon the
WPC 2701/2013 Page 4 of 5
autonomous organizations and such decision can only be taken by the
appropriate authorities.
6. In view of the above, this Court cannot grant relief as prayed
for in the writ petition, and which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
