Delhi High Court
Prof. D.K.Sengupta vs Govt. Of National Capital ... on 27 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 6491/2014
% 27th January, 2015
PROF. D.K.SENGUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandni Sen, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ferida Satarwala, Adv. for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. 23.1.2015 was declared a holiday, and by the notification
No.11/Genl/DHC dated 21.1.2015 the cases of 23.1.2015 were to be taken
up today. This case is therefore taken up today.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, and which is filed in July, 2014, petitioner impugns the order of the
erstwhile employer/respondent no.3 dated 7.7.2005 i.e issued around 9 years
prior to filing of the writ petition. By the impugned order petitioner has
been denied medical reimbursement on the ground that petitioner had not
WPC 6491/2014 Page 1 of 4
subscribed to the medical scheme i.e D.H.S. Scheme after retirement, and
consequently, petitioner cannot get medical reimbursement.
3. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two main
grounds. First ground is that no doubt limitation act does not apply to a writ
petition, but the spirit of the principles of limitation act will apply by
applying the doctrine of delay and laches inasmuch as what cannot be done
by means of filing of a civil suit, ordinarily cannot be done by filing of a writ
petition much beyond the limitation period. Merely because petitioner
claims to have been pursuing his grievances with the Public Grievances
Commission cannot mean that delay and laches can be condoned. This is all
the more so in this case because the Public Grievances Commission had
closed the case of the petitioner first time way back on 30.1.2008. In any
case, as stated above, howsoever good a case, the same is lost if the remedies
are not availed of in around the period of limitation and hence this petition is
barred by delay and laches.
4. The second ground for rejecting the relief claimed by the
petitioner is that admittedly the petitioner, and who was also the Principal
(Engineering) of the Govind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic/employer, was not a
member to the Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS) on
WPC 6491/2014 Page 2 of 4
and after his retirement i.e when he took medical treatment with respect to
the by-pass surgery after retirement. Once a person is not a member of the
medical scheme, benefits of the medical scheme cannot go to such a person.
5. I may note that petitioner claims that it was the duty of the
respondent no.3/employer to inform the petitioner that petitioner must
subscribe to the medical scheme, and the petitioner places reliance upon the
circular of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi dated
26.7.1997, however, para 1 of the circular only states that with respect to
employees who are in service, monthly contribution will be deducted from
their salary, and this para does not pertain to retired employees, who have to
by making payment become a member of the medical scheme . There is no
rule that a retiring or a retired employee should be informed by the employer
that he should become a member of the medical scheme viz the DGEHS.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents in my opinion rightly
points out that it is not as if the petitioner was an illiterate person or a person
in the clerical/class IV category employee inasmuch as the petitioner was in
fact the Principal of the employer/respondent no.3.
7. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner
because admittedly petitioner was not a member of the medical scheme
WPC 6491/2014 Page 3 of 4
when he took the treatment/underwent by-pass surgery and also because the
petitioner cannot challenge in July,2014 an order of July, 2005 which denied
medical reimbursement to the petitioner.
8. Dismissed.
JANUARY 27, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
