SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition, petitioner prays to quash the Office Note dtd. 26/10/2019 (Annexure 4) and letter dtd. 23/1/2020 (Annexure 6), by which the Medical Bill for psychiatric treatment of petitioner's wife has been rejected on the ground that the same is not admissible as per Clause 6.3(i) of CPRMSE Rules. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to reimburse the amount, which has been spent by the petitioner for psychiatric treatment of his wife, which has been illegally deducted from the bills raised by the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from some disorder, which needed psychiatric treatment. He argued that as a retired executive of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, he is entitled for reimbursement of the amount spent on his wife for psychiatric treatment, but the respondents, taking shelter of Clause 6.3(i) of the Contributory Post Retirement Medicare Scheme for Executives of CIL & its Subsidiaries (hereinafter referred to as CPRMS), have denied reimbursement, which is absolutely illegal. He submitted that treatment of mental health and mental healthcare cannot be differentiated with other healthcare treatments. He argued that there cannot be any distinction so far as it relates to mental illness and other type of physical illness. He argued that this artificial differentiation by the respondents is not based on any intelligible differentia. The embargo created by class / differentia is illegal, discriminatory and without any basis.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-BCCL submitted that reimbursement of medical bills for retired executives are guided and governed by the CPRMS. As per Clause 6.3(i) of the said CPRMS instructions, the petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner which relates to psychiatric treatment. Since there is an embargo as per the said CPRMS instructions, petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.