Judgment :- K.G. Balakrishnan, J. The appellant was an employee of the Cochin Port Trust. He retired from Service and his wife is still working in the Cochin Corporation. The appellant and his wife were enjoying the benefits under the contributory outdoor and indoor medical benefits after retirement applicable to the retired employees and their spouses of the Cochin Port Trust. The appellant sought to quash Rats. P5 and P7. As per Ext. P5, the medical facilities given to the wife of the appellant were discontinued and by Ext. P7 it was clarified that the appellant's wife was not eligible for the benefit under free medical scheme. The appellant was denied the medical facilities for his wife on the ground that she was employed in-the Cochin Corporation and that she was covered by a medical benefit scheme. The appellant contended as per Reg. 2(i) he is entitled to get the benefit of the scheme for his wife and it cannot be denied on the ground that she is gainful!; employed elsewhere and covered by a medical benefit scheme. The reliever regulations are as follows: "2. Extent of application. - These regulations are applicable to: (i) Retired Cochin Port Trust employees and their spouses; (ii) Surviving spouses of the employees who the while in service; (iii) Surviving spouses of retired employees who y after retirement; provided that, (a) the retired/ deceased employee had completed 10 years continuous service; (b) they are not gainfully employed in the public or private undertakings and/or are covered by any medical benefit scheme of the undertaking either for themselves or as dependants; (c) the surviving spouses are not remarried." The learned single judge held that proviso (a) and (b) occurring in Regulation 2 are applicable to all the three clauses mentioned in Regulation 2 and not applicable exclusively to the third clause. On that basis, it was held that the appellant's wife was not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme. Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant's wife is also entitled to get the benefit and the appellant and his wile are covered by the first clause of Regulation 2 which is in effect applicable to the retired Cochin Port Trust employees and their spouses. But we do not think that provisos (a) and (b) are not applicable to this clause. But we do not think that provisos (a) and (b) are not applicable to this clause. If the two provisos are applicable to this clause also, the appellant's wife is not entitled to the free medical benefit scheme. If the argument of the appellant's counsel is accepted it would lead to the situation where the surviving spouses of the retired employees who the after retirement will be subjected to the restriction imposed under the two provisos whereas the retired Cochin Port Trust employees and their spouses coming under clause (i) and the surviving spouses of the employees who the while in service will not be restricted by such proviso. It is necessary that there must be a harmonious construction of these provisions so as to give a sensible meaning. We are of the view that the two provisos applied to the three categories of persons mentioned in Regulation 2. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant's wife is not employed either in public or private sector undertaking and, therefore, she is not covered by the second clause. The appellant's wife is employed in the Cochin Corporation which is a public office and she has got all the medical benefits usually enjoyed by employees of a public sector undertaking. It is also not disputed that the appellant's wife is covered by a free medical benefit scheme by virtue of her employment in the Corporation. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in denying the medical benefit scheme to the appellant's wife under the Cochin Port Trust Employees (Contributory Outdoor and Indoor Medical Benefit After retirement) Regulations, 1991. The Writ Appeal is without any merit and hence it is dismissed.