Judgment : Shiva Kirti Singh Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner superannuated from the post of Block Education Extension Officer, Danapur, Patna on 30.4.1988. As a result of a pending departmental proceeding he was inflicted with punishment of reduction of 5% of pension in July, 1992 but in appeal the punishment was set aside in November, 1992. In the year 2002 the petitioner was advised for getting himself treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS). The petitioner represented before the Commissioner and Secretary of his erstwhile department to meet the cost of treatment but he received no response. The writ petition was tiled in June, 2006 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the expenses to be incurred on the treatment of the petitioner. The reference to the departmental proceeding made in the writ petition appears to be with a view to connect the ailment to the tension caused to the petitioner on account of such a proceeding. This aspect has been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. 3. The matter was earlier listed before a learned single Judge as per usual roster. It was noticed at that stage that the amended Rule 21 of the Rules for Grant of Free Medical Attendance and Supply of Medicines to Government Servants of the State (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) introduced through notification dated 22.6.1974 (Annexure-7) did not permit reimbursement facility to a pensioner or his or her spouse. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge granted liberty to the petitioner that he may challenge the vires of Rule 21. 4. In view of observations made in the order passed in this case by learned single Judge on 10.11.2010, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 2400/2011 seeking to amend the prayer portion in the writ petition. Through this I.A. provisions in Rule 21 of the Rules have been challenged on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that benefits flowing from the Rules to Government servants of the State must be made available to the retired Government servants as well as to the general public at large in view of mandate of equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that benefits flowing from the Rules to Government servants of the State must be made available to the retired Government servants as well as to the general public at large in view of mandate of equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India. According to submission the Rules also run counter to Article 21 and Article 47 of Constitution of India. 5. Article 14 of Constitution of India prohibits unreasonable classification by the State or its instrumentalities but it cannot stand in the way of the State in providing certain facilities including medical for the employees of the State. Such employees form a class and State cannot be required to extend facilities meant for Government servants to those who have already superannuated from service or to the general public on account of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The requirement of affording equality before the law to all persons within the territory of India cannot mean that all laws must apply to all the persons within the territory of India. Legislation for particular class or category of persons is permissible and it is dependant upon policy decision of the Government. A policy decision by the Government for allowing medical benefits to Government servants of the State cannot be interfered with by the courts and the Government cannot be compelled to change the law or its policy decision so as to make medical facilities available to all the citizens at par with that provided by law to Government employees. The law on this subject is well settled that courts must refrain from interfering with policy decision unless such decision is found to be patently discriminatory. Once power is conceded in favour of the State to classify persons in a reasonable manner for a rational purpose, classification of Government employees for certain benefits cannot be treated to be violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The persons left out, i.e., those who are not Government servants cannot succeed in showing that they are equally situated as the Government servants. An employer must have freedom to make beneficial provisions for the welfare of its employees so that they remain in high morale and healthy so as to be able to render efficient service to the employer, Persons who are not in the category of employees cannot claim equality with the employees. 6. An employer must have freedom to make beneficial provisions for the welfare of its employees so that they remain in high morale and healthy so as to be able to render efficient service to the employer, Persons who are not in the category of employees cannot claim equality with the employees. 6. So far as Article 21 of Constitution of India is concerned, it is meant to provide protection of law and personal liberty to all persons so that they are not deprived of such valuable rights except according to procedure established by law. Life and personal liberty may stand threatened or may stand deprived of by certain acts of the State and in such a situation the person affected can challenge such action of the State which seeks to threaten or deprive him of his life or personal liberty. The life and personal liberty of citizens or any person who is no longer a Government employee does not stand threatened or deprived of by virtue of the Rules which are for the benefits of Government employees. Although scope of Article 14 of Constitution of India has been liberally extended in recent times but the protection is essentially to prevent the State from doing anything to endanger or deprive life and personal liberty of any person except according to procedure established by law. So far as extension of benefits at the hands of the State is concerned, it cannot be done in a single action so as to provide the entire population of the country with high standards of life including medical benefits. Such beneficial action must always remain a goal to be achieved by the State but it can actually be achieved only in phases dependant upon resources available at any given point of time. How to achieve such goal, as one enshrined in Article 47 of Constitution of India, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner shall always remain a meaningful challenge for the State. The challenge has to be met gradually through formulation of proper policies and necessary Legislation from time to time. 7. Under Article 47 the State has a duty to raise the level of nutrition, standard of living and improve public health. This directive principle like other directive principles is to guide the State policies. The challenge has to be met gradually through formulation of proper policies and necessary Legislation from time to time. 7. Under Article 47 the State has a duty to raise the level of nutrition, standard of living and improve public health. This directive principle like other directive principles is to guide the State policies. However, such duties forming the part of directive principles cannot come to the aid of the petitioner to claim parity with Government employees in the matter of medical facilities provided by the Rules. 8. We find no good ground to hold Rule 21 of the Rules ultra vires and there is no scope to direct the State to amend the said Rule so as to make all the facilities under the Rules available for all persons within the territory of India. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.