Ashish Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State

Government, and Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Power Transmission Corporation, and, with their consent, the writ

petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide medical and other admissible

facilities to the petitioner and his wife, including leave encashment of 82 days and monthly medical allowance, as is being provided to other retired

Directors / employees of the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that, while the petitioner was working as the General Manager (Personnel) in the Uttarakhand Transport

Corporation, an advertisement was issued on 13.02.2015 by the State Government inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Director

(HR), Director (Finance), Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., besides other posts of Directors. The petitioner applied for the post

of Director (HR), and was appointed as such by the State Government by its order dated 24.07.2015. The petitioner continued to retain his lien with

the Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation till 2018, and even after expiry of his lien, he continued to work as the Director (HR) till 30.11.2019

when he completed his tenure as the Director.

It is the petitioner’s case that his wife is a retired Judicial Officer from the Higher Judicial Service of the State of Uttarakhand; she is also

entitled for medical reimbursement; since only one member of the family is eligible to claim medical reimbursement, she filed an affidavit foregoing her

claim for medical reimbursement; it was the petitioner who alone was claiming medical reimbursement while working as a Director both on his behalf

and on behalf of his wife; and though this facility is being extended to all other Directors, the petitioner has been denied this benefit post retirement.

Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand, would submit that Directors of the Corporation, like all

other employees, are entitled for medical reimbursement while they hold office; since the post of Director is a tenure-post for a fixed duration, there is

no specific Government Order extending them medical reimbursement benefits post-retirement / on completion of their tenure; while such a benefit is

extended even to retired employees of the Corporation, such a facility is not being extended to those employees who retired from service on

completion of their tenure; it is no doubt true that the Corporation resolved to extend such a benefit, and sought approval of the State Government;

since this is a policy decision, which the State Government is required to take, the Corporation had addressed a letter to the State Government on

08.01.2020 seeking their approval for grant of medical reimbursement to the petitioner; and it is only if the State Government were to accord approval,

would the Corporation then be in a position to extend the benefit of medical reimbursement and other benefits to the petitioner.

The decision, whether or not persons holding tenure-posts, including as Directors of Government Corporations, should be extended the benefit of

medical reimbursement and other benefits, are all matters of policy falling exclusively in the executive realm. In the absence of any statutory provision,

or a Government Order being issued in this regard, this Court may not be justified in issuing a mandamus to the State Government to extend the said

benefits to the petitioner.

The fact, however, remains that, in case the petitioner is held dis-entitled to be extended the benefit of medical reimbursement, then his wife, who is

a retired Judicial Officer, would be entitled to claim medical reimbursement in accordance with the applicable rules. Since she appears to have

submitted an affidavit foregoing her claim for medical reimbursement, on the ground that such a facility was being availed by her husband, the

petitioner now finds himself in a peculiar situation where neither is his wife in any position to claim medical reimbursement, as she has already

furnished an affidavit foregoing her claim, nor is he being extended the said benefit by the State Government.

Suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct the first respondent to examine the matter and take a considered decision on whether or not persons

holding tenure-posts, including as Directors of Government Corporations, should be extended the benefit of medical reimbursement and other benefits,

post retirement / completion of their tenure. Since these are all matters of policy, which the Government is required to formulate, we make it clear that

we have not expressed any opinion on whether or not the petitioner should be extended such benefits. All that we are directing the first respondent to

do is to take a considered decision within a specified time frame so that, in case the petitioner is held not entitled to claim such benefits, it would then

be open to his wife to make claim for extension of such benefits as a retired Judicial Officer from the Higher Judicial Service of the State of

Uttarakhand. The first respondent shall, in any event within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, take a considered

decision and communicate the same both to the petitioner herein and to the second respondent-Corporation.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.