ORDER M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the entire medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards her treatment after her superannuation. The petitioner has also challenged the office memo dated 14.1.1992, Annexure-3 to the writ petition as ultra-vires and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Reader in the National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi on 31.10.1988. It is alleged in para 3 of the petition that the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of her medical expenses while in service. The dispute is about her claim for reimbursement for medical bills after her retirement. After retirement she shifted to Allahabad, which is her hometown. It is alleged in para 5 of the petition that she is 73 years of age and is having high blood pressure and has consulted various doctors. She was also advised to undergo bypass surgery, etc. She has made representations claiming reimbursement of her medical bills incurred after her retirement.
4. In the office memo dated 14.1.1992, Annexure-3 to the petition, only the retired employees who live in Delhi are entitled to medical reimbursement.
5. The petitioner relied on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Courl dated 2.1.1998 in Writ Petition No. 1699 of 1995, Dr. C. S. Subba Rao v. Government of India and Ors., copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In that judgment, it has been held that the above memo discriminates against the retired employees who are living outside Delhi.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, it is stated that the respondent No. 1 had recommended to the Central Government to extend the benefits to the retired employees living outside Delhi also, but the Ministry of Health/Central Government has not taken a final decision in the matter.
7. In the counter-affidavit of Union of India, in para 18 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the matter is under consideration with the Central Government and the Department of Health has also approached the department of expenditure, Ministry of Finance in this respect.
8. In our opinion, this Court cannot direct that the benefit of the office memo dated 14.1.1992 be extended. There are various factors which the Central Government has to take into consideration, e.g., financial implications, the cost of living in other cities, etc. and in such policy matters, it is not proper for this Court to interfere.
9. It is well-settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy matters, particularly when the matter is under consideration by the Central Government itself. This Court should exercise restraint in such matters and not be overactivist. The financial implications and other factors have to be considered, and this Court should not embarrass the Central Government by directing that the scheme should be extended all over India.
10. In our opinion, Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied in a mechanical manner without considering all relevant factors.
11. Petition dismissed with the above observation.