Delhi High Court
Ml Karir vs The National Small Industries ... on 26 September, 2014
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.09.2014
+ W.P.(C) 3053/2011
ML KARIR ..... Petitioner
versus
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B.R. Kaushik.
For the Respondents : Mr Digvijay Rai.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking reimbursement
of medical bills amounting to `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 `1,300/- per person (i.e. `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 been included prior to the
medical emergency, as insurance cover cannot be issued retrospectively.
8.3 Thirdly, the introduction of the post retirement contributory medical
scheme w.e.f. cut off date 01.04.1992 cannot be stated to be arbitrary or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. The Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. v. N. Subbarayudu: (2008) 14
SCC 702, while considering a challenge to the cut off date fixed for
entitlement of pension to the teachers on the revised age of superannuation,
observed as under:-
"5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that
the cut-off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in
view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many
other administrative and other attending circumstances. This
Court is also of the view that fixing cut-off dates is within the
domain of the executive authority and the court should not
normally interfere with the fixation of cut-off date by the
executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face
of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of
Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal.)
6. No doubt in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India this Court had
struck down the cut-off date in connection with the demand of
pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has
considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara case
as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of
Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal.
7. There may be various considerations in the mind of the
executive authorities due to which a particular cut-off date has
been fixed. These considerations can be financial,
administrative or other considerations. The court must exercise
judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive
authorities to fix the cut-off date. The Government must be left
with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection.
8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent
of saying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be dubbed as
arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the
counter-affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to
be totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Bihar v.
Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar
Jaiswal, Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees
Welfare Assn., University Grants Commission v. Sadhana
Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has
been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government or the
executive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been
chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off date leads to
some blatantly capricious or outrageous result."
10. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the respondent fixing
a cut off date. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
RK
