Dismissed

Sri Kishan v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Delhi HC4 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/10299/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought reimbursement of medical expenses for his deceased wife. The court held that since the scheme was voluntary and contributory, requiring a lumpsum payment to join, the petitioner was not entitled to benefits for expenses incurred before he became a member.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order upholding dismissal of medical reimbursement claim is affirmed.

Sri Kishan Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~7.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 10299/2015

¶4

SRI KISHAN ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. S.B. S. Vashistha, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION..... Respondent Through Ms. Biji Rajesh, Advocate for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶10

O R D E R % 04.03.2016

¶11

The impugned order dated 13^th March, 2015 holds that the petitioner herein would not be entitled to reimbursement of medical treatment expenses incurred on his deceased wife during the period 29^th October, 2007 to 2^nd November, 2007 as he had become a member of the scheme floated by

¶12

the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Health Department) on 4^th March, 2008. Thus, the petitioner was not a member of the scheme on the dates when the expenditure was incurred.

¶13

The issue is covered against the petitioner by two Division Bench decisions of this Court. In W.P. (C) No. 539/2007, titled Dal Chand Vashisht versus Goernment of NCT of Delhi and Others decided on 14^th

¶14

March, 2008, it has been held as under:-

¶15

“26. To be able to obtain the benefit of a scheme, it is essential that the person/claimant is a member of the said scheme. If the membership is automatic i.e. it comes with the status of the person, the person would be entitled to the benefits thereof, unless he expressly, or by his conduct evinces his intentions not to participate in the scheme- e.g. where he does not pay the subscription due from him. However, where has an option,- whether or not to subscribe to the scheme and the scheme is contributory and voluntary in character, he cannot claim any benefits under the scheme unless he exercises his option to get covered by the scheme and also takes the necessary steps by paying the subscription therefore.”

¶16

This judgment of the Division Bench overrules three earlier decisions of single Judges of this Court in which a different view/ratio was accepted.

¶17

In W.P.(C) No. 12711/2009, titled Union of India and Another

¶18

versus Shanti Devi Sharma , decided on 12^th July, 2010, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and Others versus Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 399 and it was held that the petitioner therein would not be entitled to reimbursement of medical treatment expenses, as the said expenditure was incurred when he was not a member of the CGHS scheme. This judgment distinguishes cases where the post-retirement employee had settled down in a town where CGHS facilities were not available.

¶19

In the present case, as per the scheme in question, the petitioner as

¶20

any other member was required to pay a lumpsum amount before he could

¶21

join and take benefit of the scheme. It is not the case of the petitioner that

¶22

on retirement, he became a member of the scheme automatically, in the sense that no further act on his part or subscription to the scheme was required.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid legal position, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal which is in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶25

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

¶26

MARCH 04, 2016 VKR/NA

Sri Kishan v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kishan v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shribhagwan Sharma and Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs Vinai Kumar Srivastav & Anr.

Dr. Ajit Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Suman Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

The Shivlok Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies

Ravi Shankar Sahu Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Inderjit Banga Vs Registrar, Coop. Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs Vinai Kumar Srivastav & Anr.

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Anupam Gupta

Director General Ncb West & Ors. Vs Kuldeep Tomar

Sandeep Vs Staff Selection Commission & Ors.

Sanjeev Sarin Vs Rita Wadhwa & Anr.

Union of India Vs Mohinder Singh