Exclusion of Daughter- In- Law from Health Scheme for Government Employee is not discriminatory.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Court vide its order dated 23.07.2019 in Sh. Hukm Tejpratap Singh and Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. bearing W.P. (C) No. 9441 of 2018, held that the non- inclusion of the widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren in the list of beneficiaries under the health scheme of the Respondent No.1 namely, Delhi Government Employee Health Scheme (DGEHS) is not discriminatory and arbitrary.

Challenge

The factual matrix of this case is that the Petitioner No. 1 is a retired government employee. Petitioner No.2 is his widowed daughter-in-law and Petitioner No.3 is the grandson of the Petitioner No.1. The Respondent No.1, in the year 1988, formulated the DGEHS scheme for providing medical facilities and health benefits to the employees and pensioners of the Respondent No.1. The said scheme was also extended to the dependents of the aforesaid employees and pensioners.

After the demise of the son of the Petitioner No.1 in the year 2013, the Petitioner No.1 sought to update his DGEHS card in the year 2015 for seeking inclusion of the Petitioner No.2 and 3 as they are completely dependent on the Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.2 is suffering from gynaecological disorders and spine related problem. In the year 2016, the Petitioner No.2 filed an RTI application seeking the information about the status of the said application upon which a reply was received by the Petitioners vide a letter dated 18.06.2016, stating that, as per the prevalent rules, the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the employee and pensioners are not included in the list of the beneficiaries. The Petitioners, aggrieved by this letter, approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of instant Writ Petition.

The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the definition of “family” in the DGEHS is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it includes the widowed daughter but does not include the widowed daughter-in- law of the employees. Relying on certain decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein the courts had included the widowed daughter-in-law in the definition of “family” for the purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground, the Petitioner argued that the definition of “family” should be given expansive meaning as the scheme is a welfare scheme and therefore, they should include all the dependents of the cardholder.

The counsel for the Defendant, on the other hand, submitted that the definition of the “family” was clearly stated in the Scheme as provided in the website of the Respondent No.1. It was further stated that the reason for the exclusion of the widowed daughter-in-law is that she would be entitled to claim medical benefits if her father was a government employee and a member of the scheme. It was further submitted that the scheme is based upon the CGHS (Central Government Health Scheme) which is extended across the country and follows the same rules.

Held

The Hon’ble Court, while differentiating the decision of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court from the present case,  held that the object of providing the compassionate employment was to ensure that upon the demise of a serving employee, his dependent family is not rendered destitute and at least one of the members is provided with employment to ensure that other members are taken care of, whereas the instant scheme of the Respondent No.1 is a contributory scheme and contribution is made by the employee to seek medical cover and while becoming a member of the scheme, the employee is well aware of the list of beneficiaries, therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court would not apply in the instant petition. The Court, based on the above reasoning, dismissed the Petition.