Heard Mr. P. C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing counsel, respondent-ASEB. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner representing all retired employees of the Assam State Electricity Board (in short 'ASEB), prayed for issuing a direction to the respondent ASEB to provide medical reimbursement facilities to the retired employees at par with the serving employees of the ASEB or similar to that of the retired employees of the State Government of Assam in terms of the provisions made under the Assam Medical Attendance Rules, 1976. 3. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners' Association on number of occasions approached the respondent authorities to fulfill their legitimate demandof providing medical re-imbursement facilities after retirement, at par with the serving employees of the ASEB or in the manner prescribed for retiredState Government employees. It has been further stated that in spite of repetitive appeal and representation on the issue in question ,the respondent authorities concerned have not taken any beneficial steps to fulfill their legitimate demands. So this writ petition . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to providemedical re-imbursement facilities to the retired pensioners of ASEBto save their life from major diseases in old age and also submitted that right to MedicalAid to protect the health of the member of staff while in serviceand after the retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 39(e), 41,43 and 48(A) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1995 SC 922 (Consumer Education and Research Centre and others Vs. Union of India and others), wherein the Hon'bleSupreme Court has held that all employersare enjoined to take all actions to promote health, strength and vigor of workman during employment and leisure and health, even after retirement. The relevant extracts of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision may be reproduced below:- "26. The right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life to have not only a meaningful existence but also robust health and vigour without which worker would lead life of misery. Lack of health denudes his livelihood. The right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life to have not only a meaningful existence but also robust health and vigour without which worker would lead life of misery. Lack of health denudes his livelihood. Compelling economic necessity to work in an industry exposed to health hazards due to indigence to bread winning to himself and his dependents should not be at the cost of the health, and vigour of the workman. Facilities and opportunities, as enjoined in Article 38, should be provided to protect the health of the workman. Provision for medical test and treatment invigorates the health of the worker for higher production or efficient service. Continued treatment, while in service or after retirement is a moral, legal and constitutional concomitant duty of the employer and the State. Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(c), 41 and 43 of the Constitution and make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. Right to life includes protection of the health and strength of the worker is a minimum requirement to enable a person to live with human dignity. The State, be it Union or State Government or an industry, public or private, is enjoined to take all such action which will promote health, strength and vigour of the workman during the period of employment and leisure and health even after retirement as basic essentials to live the life with health and happiness. The health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workman the finer facets of life violating Art.21 . The right to human dignity, development of personality, social protection, right to rest and leisure are fundamental human rights to a workman assured by the Charter of Human Rights, in the Preamble and Arts. 38 and 39 of the Constitution . Facilities for ,medical care and health against sickness ensures stable manpower for economic development and would generate devotion to duty and ded8cation to give the workers best physically as well as mentally in production of goods or services. Health of the worker enables him to enjoy the fruit of his labour, keeping him physically fit and mentally alert for leading a successful life, economically, socially and culturally. Health of the worker enables him to enjoy the fruit of his labour, keeping him physically fit and mentally alert for leading a successful life, economically, socially and culturally. Medical facilities to protect the health of the workers are, therefore, the fundamental and human rights to the workmen. 27. Therefore, we hold that rights to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e) 41, 43, 48(A) and all related to Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. 31It is, therefore, settled law that in public law claim for compensation is a remedy available under Article 32 or 226 for the enforcement and protection of fundamental and human rights. The defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights. There is no question of defence being available for constitutional remedy. It is practical and inexpensive mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State, its servants, its instrumentalities, a company or a person in the purported exercise of their powers and enforcement of the rights claimed either under the statutes or licence issued under the statute or for the enforcement of any right or duty under the Constitution of any right or duty under the Constitution or the law." 5. It cannot lost sight of that in a social welfare state pension and post retrial benefits such as facilities for medical treatment or reimbursement of medical expensesare some socio economic justice measures to provide relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on ones own feet . As amatter of fact benefit of post retiral schemes are made available for past satisfactory service rendered by the employees to avoid destitution in old age. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre and others -vs- Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 held that continued treatment, while in service or after retirement is amoral, legaland constitutional concomitant duty of the employer and the State. Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21read with Articles 39(c), 41 and 43 of the Constitution andmake the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful withdignity of person. Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21read with Articles 39(c), 41 and 43 of the Constitution andmake the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful withdignity of person. He observation reflected on the above decision reads as follows: 24. The expression 'life' assured inArt.21ofthe Constitution doesnot connote mereanimalexistenceor continue ddrudgery through life. It has a muchideal meaning which includes right to livelihood, betterstandard of life, hygienic conditions inworkplace andleisure. In Olga Tellis v.Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985(3) SCC 545 , this Court held that no person can live without the means of living i.e. means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive himof his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content of meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live, leave aside what makes lifeliveable. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilisation, which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned. In State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986)2 SCC68,this Court held that therightto life includesthe quality of life as understood in itsrichness andfullness by the ambit of the constitution. Access to road was held to be an access to life itself in that state. 25. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494 , considering the effect of solitary confinement of a prisoner sentencedtodeathand the meaning of the word 'life' enshrined under Article 21, the Constitution Bench held that the quality of-life covered by Article 21 is somethingmore than the dynamic meaning attached to life and liberty. The same view was reiterated in Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay v. D.R. Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 , Vikrant Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, (1988)Suppl.SCC 734, R.Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, (1989)1 Suppl. SCC 251. In Charles Sobraj v. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1978SC 1514, this Court held that the right to life includesright tohumandignity. The right against torture, cruel or unusual punishment or degraded treatment was held to violate the right to life. SCC 251. In Charles Sobraj v. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1978SC 1514, this Court held that the right to life includesright tohumandignity. The right against torture, cruel or unusual punishment or degraded treatment was held to violate the right to life. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 at 183-84, this Court held that the rightto live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21, derives its life-breath from the directive principles of the State policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39and Articles41 and 42. In C.E.S.C. Ltd. &Ors.v. Subhash Chandra Bose, 1992(1) SCC 441 , considered thegamut of operational efficacy of Human Rights and the constitutional rights, the right to medical aid andhealth andheld that the right to social justiceare fundamental rights. Right to free legal aid to the poorandindigent worker was held to be a fundamental right in Khatri (11)v. State of Bihar, (1981)1 SCC 627 .Right toeducationwas held to be a fundamental right vide Maharashtra StateB.O.S. &H.S. Education v. K.S. Gandhi, 1991(2) SCC 716 . and UnniKrishnan v. State of A.P., (1993)1 SCC 645 . 26. The right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningfulrighttolife to have not onlyameaningful existencebut also robust health and vigourwithout which workerwould lead life of misery.Lack of healthdenudes his livelihood. Compelling economic necessity to work in an industry exposedtohealth hazards duetoindigenceto bread-winning to himself and his dependents, should not be at the cost of the health and big our of the workman. Facilities and opportunities, as enjoined in Article 38, should be provided to protect the health of the workman. Provision for medical test and treatment invigorates the health of the worker for higher production or efficient service. Continued treatment, while in service or after retirement is amoral, legal and constitutional concomitant duty of the employer and the State. Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21read with Articles 39(c), 41 and 43 of the Constitution and make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. Right to life includes protection of the health and strength of the workerisaminimum requirement to enable a person to live with humandignity. Right to life includes protection of the health and strength of the workerisaminimum requirement to enable a person to live with humandignity. The State, be it Union or State government or anindustry, public or private, is enjoined to take all such action which will promotehealth, strength and vigouroftheworkman during the period of employment and leisure and health even after retirement as basic essentials to live the life with health and happiness. The health and strength of the worker is anintegralfacet of right to life. Denial there of denudes the workman the finer facets of life violating Art.21. The right to human dignity, development of personality, social protection, right to rest and leisure are fundamental human rights to a workman assured by the Charter of Human Rights, in the Preamble and Arts.38 and39 of the Constitution. Facilities for medical care and health against sickness ensures stable manpower for economic development and would generatedevotionto duty and dedication to give the workers' best physically as wellas mentally in production of goods or services. Health of the worker enables him to enjoy the fruit of his labour, keeping him physically fitandmentallyalert for leading a successful life, economically, socially and culturally. Medical facilities to protect the health of the workers are, therefore, the fundamental and human rights to the workmen." 7. The issue in question before this courtis a clear matter of policy having financial and other economic implications, therefore, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be hesitant to enter in the domain of the Executive to give directions to the respondent ASEB to grant medical reimbursement to the retired employees of the bank. The Apex Court in its authoritative pronouncement dealing with the issue of medical reimbursement in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 117 observed as under: "22. So far as questioning the validity of governmental policy is concerned in our view it is not normally within the domain of any court, to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on however sound and good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion; it would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The Court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm, which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 When it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial constraints. 23. When we speak about a right, it correlates to a duty upon another, individual, employer, Government or authority. In other words, the right of one is an obligation of another. Hence the right of a citizen to live under Article 21 casts obligation on the State. This obligation is further reinforced under Article 47 it is for the State to secure health to its citizen as its primary duty. No doubt Government is rendering this obligation by opening Government hospitals and health centers, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, to reduce the queue of waiting lists, and it has to provide all facilitiesfor which an employee looks for at another hospital. Its up-keep; maintenance and cleanliness has to be beyond aspersion. To employ the best of talents and tone up its administration to give effective contribution. Also bring in awareness in welfare of hospital staff for their dedicated service, give them periodical, medico-ethical and service oriented training, not only at the entry point but also during the whole tenure of their service. Since it is one of the most sacrosanct and valuable rights of a citizen and equally sacrosanct sacred obligation of the State, every citizen of this welfare State looks towards the State for it to perform its this obligation with top priority including by way of allocation of sufficient funds. This in turn will not only secure the right of its citizen to the best of their satisfaction but in turn will benefit the State in achieving its social, political and economical goal. For every return there has to be investment. Investment needs resources and finances. So even to protect this sacrosanct right finances are an inherent requirement. Harnessing such resources needs top priority. For every return there has to be investment. Investment needs resources and finances. So even to protect this sacrosanct right finances are an inherent requirement. Harnessing such resources needs top priority. 24. Coming back to test the claim of respondents, the State can neither urge nor say that it has no obligation to provide medical facility. If that were so it would be ex facie violative of Article 21. Under the new policy, medical facility continues to be given and now an employee is given free choice to get treatment in any private hospital in India but the amount of payment towards reimbursement is regulated. Without fixing any specific rate, the new policy refers to the obligation of paying at the rate fixed by the Director. The words are; to the level of expenditure as per the rate fixed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab for a similar treatment package or actual expenditure which ever is less 26. No State or any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its project. That is why it only approves its projects to the extent it is feasible. The same holds good for providing medical facilities to its citizen including its employees. Provision of facilities cannot be unlimited. It has to be to the extent finance permit. If no scale or rate is fixed then in case private clinics or hospitals increase their rate to exorbitant scales, the State would be bound to reimburse the same. Hence we come to the conclusion that principle of fixation of rate and scale under this new policy is justified and cannot be held to be violative of Article 21 or Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 27. In Vincent v. Union of India (1987) 2 SCR 468 : In a welfare State, therefore, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health In a series of pronouncements, during the recent years, this Court has culled out from the provisions of Part-IV of the Constitution, the several obligations of the State and called upon it to effectuate them in order that the resultant picture by the Constitution fathers may become a reality. 28. 29. Any State endeavor for giving best possible health facility has direct co-relation with finances. 28. 29. Any State endeavor for giving best possible health facility has direct co-relation with finances. Every State for discharging its obligation to provide some projects to its subject requires finances. Article 41 of the Constitution gives recognition to this aspect. 'Article 41: Right to work, to educate and to public assistance in certain cases: The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provisions for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want." 8. There is no dispute that the right to life has to be given a vital meaning which includes better standard of living and not merely animal existence. There cannot be any dispute with the said proposition that the right to health is an integral facet of the meaningful right to life and any denial of the same would be in stark violation of fundamental rights of the citizens as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Contesting the above submissions of counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhattacharya, counsel for the respondent ASEB, submitted that the petitioners have no legal right to enforce claim for the grant of medical reimbursement by approaching this Court in the writ jurisdiction. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that the petitioners do get retirement l benefits including lump sum medical allowances, besides receiving their monthly pension and under the rules, therefore they can not claim grant of medical reimbursement after retirement. Counsel also submitted that in the absence of any rules and also in the absence of any provisions made to that effect the petitioners are not entitled to claim his medical reimbursement. 10. In the above context the learned counsel for the respondent ASEB has submitted that ASEB is also extending medical benefit to its retired employees together with pension at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month and neither rule has been framed by the ASEB, nor any rule has been adopted so far or any guidelines have been issued to extend the medical re- imbursement facilities at par with State Government employees. 375/- per month and neither rule has been framed by the ASEB, nor any rule has been adopted so far or any guidelines have been issued to extend the medical re- imbursement facilities at par with State Government employees. Learned counsel for the respondent ASEB submits that it is not feasible on the part of the respondent ASEB to extend medical facilities to the retired employees at par with the serving employees of ASEB or in terms of Assam Medical Attendance Rules, 1976 and submitted that this Court in the absence of such rules, guidelines, may not issue any direction for payment of medical re-imbursement facilities to the retired employees of the respondent ASEB. 11. There is no dispute that reimbursement of medical expenses facility is available only to the serving employees of ASEB and not to its retired employees. It is also not in dispute that neither the service conditions nor any rules prescribe medical reimbursement to the retired employees of ASEB. So far there has been no provision for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the retired employees of the ASEB, and they are ineligible to claim such medical reimbursement after their retirement. 12. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondent ASEB has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1991) 3 SCC 11 (Union of India and others Vs. Tejram Parasharamji Bombhate and others), whereinit has been held that "No tribunal or courtcan compel the government to change its policy which involves financial burden on it." 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case has also raised the issue of discrimination by drawing attention of this court to the facility of medical reimbursement available to government servants, while denying the same facilities to other retired employees of ASEB. The case of the petitioner is that although they are retired employees of the corporation, still being discriminated since alike treatment is not extended to them. The service conditions of there tired Government employees are not at par with that of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners cannot claim being a victim of any discrimination by virtue of medical reimbursement being denied, as all of them are governed by a separate set of service conditions. I find this argument devoid of any merit as no equality can be claimed by ASEB employees with that of the state Government employees. I find this argument devoid of any merit as no equality can be claimed by ASEB employees with that of the state Government employees. Here, it would be useful to refer to the following para of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Sri R. Vivekananda Swamy AIR 2008 SC 2080 , where it was held that: "It, however, goes without saying that while exercising such a power, the authority must act judiciously keeping in mind the purport and object thereof. Considerations there for, although may not partake a mathematical exactable but should always be fair and reasonable. Although it may not be possible for an employee to enforce a purported right on the premise that another person had obtained reimbursement for a similar kind of treatment, ordinarily fair procedure envisages a broad similarity. If any person has been shown any undue favour, we may add, by itself may not be a ground to favour another but when such a contention is raised, the State should be able to demonstrate a fair treatment. It is possible to draw a distinction on the basis of several factors, emergent situation being one of them." 14. To invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person must disclose as to what is his legal right of which the enforcement has been sought and on what ground the State has denied such legal rights or opportunity to him and in what manner the denial of benefit of such legal right would violate the fundamental rights of such person. There is no gain saying that the petitioner in the present case has not placed any material on record to show that on what basis he has claimed his right of grant of medical reimbursement after retirement. Is it under any bipartite settlement or is there any rule or regulation of the ASEB existing granting extension of medical facilities after retirement and therefore, in the absence of the same petitioner cannot complain that by denying medical reimbursement, his fundamental rights have been violated. As already stated above, it is not the case of the petitioner that medical reimbursement has been denied under any statutory rule after his retirement and whatever medical reimbursement he was entitled to were given to him during his tenure of service. 15. As already stated above, it is not the case of the petitioner that medical reimbursement has been denied under any statutory rule after his retirement and whatever medical reimbursement he was entitled to were given to him during his tenure of service. 15. From the above discussion it is amply clear that in the absence of any scheme or rules regulating the benefit of medical reimbursement of retired employees of the ASEB, it would not be fair for this court to order extension of similar facility like that of the state Government servants or serving employees of the ASEB and to enforce a purported right on the premise that another person had obtained reimbursement for a similar kind of treatment. 16. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners can not be granted and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. 17. However, before parting, this Court finds it apposite to observe that there is no clog and/or bar to the respondent authority to formulate a scheme for reimbursement of medical treatment benefit to its retired employees. As a matter of fact, medical test and treatment invigorates the health of the worker for higher production or efficient service. Continued treatment, while in service or after retirement is a moral, legal and constitutional concomitant duty of the employer and the State. The Apex Court has also held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(c), 41 and 43 of the Constitution and make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. Thus, bearing in mind the dedicated and sincere service rendered by the employees of ASEB, throughout their service life, a duty is cast on the respondent ASEB to render adequate financial assistance for treatment of their ailments in old age. Such a humane and benevolent approach to ameliorate the grievance of its retired employees should be initiated by the respondent ASEB by formulating a scheme, to render medical benefits to its retired employees, without wasting time.