JUDGMENT S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The prayer in both these writ petitions is similar. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11962 of 2009, the Petitioners are the CCRH Scientists Welfare Association and the Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathic Employees' Association. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6841 of 2010 the Petitioners are the NMML Retired Employees' Welfare Association and one Mr. Desh Raj, a retired employee of the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library ('NMML'). In both petitions, it is prayed that a mandamus be issued to the Respondent Union of India to extend the Central Government Health Services ('CGHS') Scheme to the pensioners, family pensioners and retired employees of the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy ('CCRH') and NMML respectively. 2. Counsel for the Petitioners relies upon an order dated 2nd April 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5417 of 2001 (SPA Retired Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India), which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 2nd February 2006 in LPA No. 488 of 2004 (Union of India v. SPA Retired Employees' Welfare Association). It was held by this Court that retired employees of School of Planning and Architecture ('SPA'), a society fully funded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India would be entitled to the benefit of the CGHS Scheme even after retirement. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in S.K. Sharma v. Union of India 2002 (64) DRJ 620 ; Government of NCT of Delhi v. Som Dutt Sharma 118 (2005) DLT 144 (DB); V.K. Jagdhari v. Union of India 125 (2005) DLT 636 and Kishan Chand v. Govt. of NCT 169 (2010) DLT 32 wherein it was held that even retired employees of the Government and organisations under the control of the Government would be entitled to the benefit under the CGHS scheme. 3. Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, refers to the reply filed in these petitions where the stand taken is that the benefit of the CGHS cannot be extended to retired employees of autonomous organisations under the central government due to 'lack of infrastructure' and 'financial constraints'. Elsewhere, it has been pleaded that the CGHS facilities cannot be extended to retired employees of CCRH and NMML due to 'limited manpower resources at the disposal of the CGHS'. 4. Elsewhere, it has been pleaded that the CGHS facilities cannot be extended to retired employees of CCRH and NMML due to 'limited manpower resources at the disposal of the CGHS'. 4. It appears to this Court that the stand of the Government in the present cases is untenable. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 2nd April 2003 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5417 of 2001 by observing as under: In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 to 4, it is stated that CGHS Medical facilities are primarily for the Central Government employees/retired pensioners and their families. It is however, accepted that these have been extended to the employees of the School as well. The only reason stated for not extending these facilities to the retired employees of the School that within the available infrastructure and availability of resources, it may not be possible to cover any more beneficiaries under CGHS as the dispensaries are already catering the needs for which they were initially started. This cannot be a reason to deny the benefits to retired employees of the School who are otherwise entitled to the benefits in terms of their Service Regulations. Admittedly, no amendment is the Service Regulations and such an administrative decision taken by the Respondents to deny this benefit would clearly be contrary to the Service Regulations and thus illegal. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. SPA concurred with the above views in paras 16 to 18 of its judgment as under: 16. It has been accepted by the Respondents that they have extended the medical facilities available to the Central Government employees to the employees of the School as well. However, it is alleged that the same facility is not extended to the retired employees' of the School due to lack of resources. We agree with the learned Singe Judge that there is a constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of providing for the health of such retired employees. 17. It is admitted by the Appellant (Respondent in the writ petition) that retired Central Government employees are getting the same medical facility as serving employees. We, therefore, fail to understand the logic for not extending the benefit to retired employees of the school. 17. It is admitted by the Appellant (Respondent in the writ petition) that retired Central Government employees are getting the same medical facility as serving employees. We, therefore, fail to understand the logic for not extending the benefit to retired employees of the school. It is pleaded by the Appellant that there is lack of financial resources, but no data has been given as to what would be the additional financial burden if the medical facility is given to retired employees of the school. Hence this contention is only the ipse dixit of the Appellant. 18. It may be mentioned that retired employees are generally older people and it is well-known that old people are more infirm and more frail in need of more medical benefits as compared to younger people. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is eminently just and in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, which has been held in the above mentioned decisions to include the right to good health. 6. Although these cases were adjourned at one point of time to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition ('SLP') stated to have been filed by the Union of India against the aforementioned judgment dated 2nd February 2006 of the Division Bench in the Union of India v. SPA, learned Counsel for the Petitioners point out that even while directing notice to issue in the SLP no interim order was passed by the Supreme Court staying the operation of the said judgment. The position, therefore, is that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the SPA case, which in the view of this Court covers the present cases, continues to hold the field. 7. Consequently, these two writ petitions are allowed. It is directed that the Respondents will extend the facilities of the CGHS to the retired employees, pensioners and family pensioners of the CCRH and NMML on the same terms as extended to retired employees, pensioners and family pensioners of the Government of India and its organisations. The necessary circular/clarificatory orders in this regard will be issued by the Union of India within a period of eight weeks from today. The necessary circular/clarificatory orders in this regard will be issued by the Union of India within a period of eight weeks from today. The medical claims, if any, of Petitioner No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 6841 of 2010, the members of the Petitioner associations in W.P. (C) No. 11962 of 2009 and those similarly placed will thereafter be processed and disposed of within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. 8. The writ petitions and the pending application are disposed of in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. Writ Petitions and Applications disposed of.