Delhi High Court
Jugal Kishore Julka & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 2023
$~A-26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 412/2023 & C.M.Nos.23237-23238/2023, 43803/2023
JUGAL KISHORE JULKA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms.Amiy Shukla with Mr.Shakti
Vardhan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vivek Goyal, CGSC with
Mr.Gokul Sharma and Mr.Shivak
Singh, Advocates for R-1/UOI.
Mr.Rajesh Kumar Gautam with
Mr.Anant Gautam, Mr.Sumit Sharma,
Ms.Anani Achumi, Mr.Dinesh
Sharma and Ms.Shivani Sagar,
Advocates for R-3.
Mr.Amit Kumar Singh with
Ms.K.Enatoli Sema, Ms.Chubalemla
Chang and Mr.Prang Newmai,
Advocates for R-4.
% Date of Decision: 24th August, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order/judgment dated
06th September, 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.11433/2019.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.08.2023
2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the learned Single Judge
has erroneously dismissed the writ petition filed by the retired bank
employees challenging the arbitrary increase in the health insurance
premium. She points out that the rate of premium has this year (2022-2023)
exorbitantly increased to Rs.77920/- for retired workmen and Rs.97776/-
for retired officers under the Retirees IBA Health Insurance Policy, which
is an increase of 600 to 700 percent within a short span of six years.
3. She also contends that the learned Single Judge has erroneously held
that the 'INSURANCE SCHEME' is optional. She states that the letter of
the Ministry of Finance dated 24th February, 2012 has been misinterpreted
as being optional for retired employees.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly states that the increase in
premium cannot be justified by the Banks and Insurance Company because
there is a huge gap in terms of premium and facilities provided between the
serving employees and retired employees of the Public Sector Banks which
is absolutely arbitrary in nature.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the
view that the Insurance Companies are at liberty to set their premiums as
well as the terms and conditions for each subsequent year in accordance
with law. In addition, a retired employee being older in age than the serving
employee would be at greater medical risk and, therefore, his premium has
to be higher.
6. This Court is also of the view that the Ministry of Finance letter dated
24th February, 2012 only states that Banks have the option to formulate a
health insurance scheme for retired bank employees. The said letter does
not mandate issuance of the Group Insurance Policy for retired employees.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.08.2023
Since there is no legislation or policy in favour of the appellants, this Court
finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal along with pending applications is
dismissed. However, the appellants are given liberty to file a representation
with the Ministry of Finance and if such a representation is made, the same
is directed to be considered in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that
it has not expressed any opinion with regard to the representation to be
made by the appellants.
MANMOHAN, J
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
AUGUST 24, 2023
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:28.08.2023
