J.M. Malik, J.@mdashThe petitioner was a confirmed and regular employee of National Seeds Corporation Limited, respondent No. 2. He was in service for 28 years. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement i.e. VRS in January 1993. The job of the petitioner is not pensionable. The petitioner was covered under the Central Govt. Health Scheme, CGHS until the time of his voluntary retirement in Delhi. The petitioner was deprived of the said facility immediately after seeking voluntary retirement. The petitioner suffers from acute diabetes with associated complications and cardiac ailment. Recently, petitioner underwent heart surgery. Although, CGHS facility is extended to all retired Central Govt. employees, yet the same has been denied to the retired employees of NSC. They neither get this facility nor pension. Under these circumstances, the present writ was filed in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to provide CGHS benefit to the petitioner. Initially, this case was filed against Union of India and National Seeds Corporation Limited. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was imp leaded as respondent No. 3 vide following order passed by this Court on 11.9.2006:
Learned counsel for the respondent heard. My attention has been drawn towards letter written by Mr. Kumar Bhatia, Managing Director, National Seed Corporation (NSC) dated 5.5.2004 wherein a request was made by Joint Secretary (Seed), Ministry of Agriculture, to the effect that officers/officials working in Head Office of the Corporation are CGHS card holders and get medical facilities for themselves and for the dependent members of their families. Again, medical facilities are continued for those "central government employees" who are availing medical facilities, on their retirement after paying some contribution. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that this matter was sent to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for extension of CGHS scheme to the retired NSC employees. Counsel for the respondent states that they have also placed on record copy of letter received from Dr. R. Anand, Joint Director, Central Government Health Scheme, wherein it was explained that due to resource constraints it was not possible to give approval to their above said request.
Under the circumstances, opportunity is being given to the petitioner to implead Ministry of Health as one of the respondents in this case. Petitioner to file amended memo of parties within a fortnight. On filing of the amended memo of parties, Registry is directed to issue notice to the newly added respondent for the date fixed.
Renotify on 10th October, 2006.
None appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 despite service.
2. Respondent No. 2 made the following averments. Petitioner has no legal right to get the above said facility. Respondent No. 2 is dependent on financial assistance of Ministry of Agriculture for its existence. Government does not provide any annual budget. Financial support to NSC for its revenue expenditure and all the expenditure has to be met by the NSC through its own resources. In nutshell, Government does not have any financial control over the functions of NSC. As per the Central Govt. Health Scheme, the medical facilities are provided by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, consequent upon contribution made by the employee and the employer. NSC is not competent to provide CGHS facilities to the retired employees. N.S.C. is not fully funded by Government of India as is SPA. NSC is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It has an independent entity and its functions are on commercial basis. Government of India does not have any direct control on the day to day affairs of the company. NSC employees cannot claim to be government employees.
3. I have heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for respondent No. 2. Counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that he has no objection if the above said facility is granted in favor of petitioner/employees of N.S.C.
4. This is admitted fact that the facility of CGHS was available to the petitioner while he was in service of NSC. The Constitution commands justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as supreme values to usher in the egalitarian social, economic and political democracy. Social justice, equality and dignity of person are corner stones of social democracy. In a developing society like ours steeped with unbridgeable and ever widening gaps of unequality in status and of opportunity, law is catalyst rubicon to the poor etc. to reach the ladder of social justice. All these views neatly dovetail with the observations made in
The expression ''life'' assured in Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation this Court held that no person can live without the means of living i.e. means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content of meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilisation which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned. In State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma this Court held that the right to life includes the quality of life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. Access to road was held to be an access to life itself in that State.
5. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mahender Singh Chawla JT 1997 (1) SC 417, it was held:
It is now settled law that right to health is an integral to right to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide the health facilities. If the Government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a specialised approved hospital and on reference whereat the Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government servant. Expenditure, thus, incurred requires to be reimbursed by the State to the employee. The High Court was, Therefore, right in giving direction to reimburse the expenses incurred towards room rent by the respondent during his stay in the hospital as an inpatient.
6. In a latest judgment bearing No. LPA 499/2004, Union of India and Ors. v. SPA Retired Employees Welfare Association decided on 02.02.2006 gave the above said facility to the aggrieved person.
7. Petitioner has stated that he would not claim the expenses already incurred by him till the filing of this writ petition. It is, Therefore, ordered that respondents and especially respondent No. 3 would provide CGHS benefit to the petitioner as well as to the retired employees of N.S.C. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
