IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 27-08-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4299 of 2001 BHEL RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Rep. by its General Secretary, S.Natarajan, (Registration No.74/89) P.H.173, Kailasapuram Township, Tiruchirapalli.14. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110 049. 2.The Additional General Manager Personnel and Administration, BHEL Corporate Office, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110 049. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his letter No.AA:PER:RE:1, dated 29.7.99and letter No.AA:PER:RE:1, dated 22.9.99, Corporate Circular No.22 of 1999 and quash the orders passed therein in so far as the prescription of Annual Revalidation Fee for Life Members of the BHEL Retired Employees Contributory Health Scheme is concerned and direct the respondents to refrain from prescribing or collecting any fee including Annual Revalidation Fee from Life Members of the said scheme. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.Sanjay Mohan for Mr.S.Ramasubramanian & Associates O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner Association that it is an association of persons, who had retired from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, the first respondent herein. The first respondent is an arm of the Government of India and the members of the petitioner Association had been registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, with Registration No.74/89. There are nearly 1000 employees who are the members of the petitioner Association, having retired from the service of the first respondent. It has been further stated that the first respondent has floated a scheme known as BHEL Retired Employees’ Contributory Health Scheme, in which all the retired employees had become members by paying the necessary subscription. By a letter bearing No.AA:PER:MR:1, dated 1.7.91, the said scheme was modified by giving an option to the members to make an one time lump sum contribution towards the subscription. Such payment of subscription was for life and they were called as life members. While so, the second respondent had issued a letter, dated 29.7.99, after eight years of the introduction of the life membership, prescribing an Annual Revalidation Fee, even for those who had become life members. Several representations had been sent to the respondents, requesting them to withdraw the prescription of Annual Revalidation Fee. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner Association had filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner Association. It has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable, either in law or on facts. The BHEL Retired Employees’ Contributory Health Scheme, has been introduced by the respondent company purely as a welfare measure and not under any contract/agreement or as a statutory obligation. The scheme is entirely administered by the company. The retired employees did not contribute to the cost of the medical expenditure. However, they are required to pay a token amount towards registration and annual revalidation fees. In the Scheme it has been stated that the Management would have the right to amend or even withdraw any or all the facilities admissible under the scheme, at any time. The Management is not required to take any consent of any retired employee or any other agency to carry out any amendment to the Scheme or to withdraw it entirely. It has also been stated that no contract is created between a retired employee and the respondent company on payment of the lumpsum contribution by the retired employee. Since the Scheme is funded by the company, it is entitled to modify or amend the Scheme or to withdraw the same.
4. It has been further stated that the eligibility criteria have been stipulated in the Scheme itself. Clause 6.5 of the Scheme stipulates that the medical card will become invalid if any one of the eligibility conditions prescribed remains unsatisfied. The respondent company is entitled to modify the eligibility conditions. Clause 7.7 also stipulates that the lumpsum contribution by the retired employees is subject to review by the Management. Accordingly, the impugned circular, dated 22.9.99, is in accordance with the Scheme.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner Association as well as the respondents, it is clear that the members of the petitioner Association had joined the BHEL Retired Employees’ Contributory Health Scheme, which contains Clause 7.7, according to which the lumpsum contribution paid by the members of the petitioner Association is subject to review by the Management. Even though the members of the petitioner Association had paid a life time subscription as claimed by them, it would be subject to the Clauses contained in the said Scheme. Once the members of the petitioner Association have agreed for such a review or modification in the Scheme, they cannot have any grievance with regard to the impugned letter of the second respondent, dated 29.7.99, and the Corporate Circular No.22/99, dated 22.9.99, which are impugned in the present writ petition. According to the respondents, the members of the petitioner Association, will have no legal right to claim continuance of any of the facilities under the Scheme and it is not required of the Management to take the consent of the retired employee or any other agency to carry out any amendment to the Scheme or to withdraw the Scheme in its entirety.
6. Since the impugned circular, dated 22.9.99, is in accordance with the Scheme it cannot be held to be arbitrary are contrary to the Scheme. The petitioner has not been in a position to show sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned letters of the second respondent, dated 29.7.99 and 22.9.99 and the Circular No.22 of 1999, dated 22.9.99. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
csh
To
1. The Chairman and Managing
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
Director, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110 049.
2.The Additional General Manager
Personnel and Administration,
BHEL Corporate Office,
Siri Fort,
New Delhi 110 049
[ PRV / 15913 ]