C SUBBA RAO Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the validity of the Government of India Letter dated 14th January, 1991 addressed to the Director of Central Government, Health Scheme, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, stating that the facilities of C.G.H.S. (Central Government Health Scheme) was made available to the retired employees of the National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi, on cost to cost basis. The letter further states that such facilities was admissible only to the retired employees residing at Delhi/New Delhi.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was working as a Professor in the said National Councilof Educational Research and Training, New Delhi and he retired with effect from 31st December, 1987. He further stated that he was for some time in Delhi and later he has decided to settle down at Hyderabad and as such now he is in Hyderabad. But as per the said letter if he wants to avail the C.G.H.S. he has to necessarily go and reside at Delhi and being a retired employee it is not possible for him. He further submitted that the same benefits extended to the other retired employees of the National Council of Educational Research and Training, residing at New Delhi is not extended to the employees of the same Organisation residing outside Delhi. He further submitted that confering certain benefits to the pensioners residing at Delhi and denying the same to the retired employees residing outside Delhi is discreminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that as a retired employee he is entitled to the same benefit or treatment given to the other retired employees of National Councilof Educational Research and Training even though he is residing at Hyderabad. Thus, he submitted that the action of the respondents in not extending the said benefit to the retired employees living all over India is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A counter is filed denying these allegations. In the counter it is stated that no doubt the petitioner was working in NCERT in New Delhi and he retired from the service, but C.G.H.S. facility is extended only to the employees and pensioners of NCERT residing at Delhi on cost to cost basis. It is also stated that the Central Government Health Scheme is basically a contributory Health Scheme for Central Government Employees. The employees/pensioners of Autonomous/Semi Government Organisations are not covered by this scheme. However, on a specific request from some Autonomous/Semi Government Organisations, the employees and pensioners of a few Autonomous/Semi Government Organisations have been extended this facility on cost to cost basis in Delhi only. It is further stated that under the costs to cost basis scheme, the Organisation concerned has to pay the average actual expenditure per beneficiary serving under them. Further, it is stated that such facilities are extended only to the pensioners residing in Delhi, since it is not possible, for them to extend the same to persons residing outside Delhi due to financial constraints, because the employees of NCERT are not Central Government Employees-Pensioners. Thus it is contended that the decision of the Respondent-Ministry in not extending the benefit of C.G.H.S. to the pensioners of the NCERT residing outside Delhi cannot be said to be arbitrary. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.