IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 449 OF 2008 MR. AGNELO E. S. PO ... Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF GOA AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 6th October, 2008 P.C. Heard. The petitioner, an employee of Goa Government, retired on attaining age of superannuation from the post of Superintendent in the District Court on 31.1.2007. The petitioner's spouse is in the employment of the Government of Goa. 2. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission, a Scheme was introduced by the Union of India vide Office Memorandum dated 19.12.1997 which made available to the retired or retiring employees an option either to avail medical facilities under the Central Government Hospitals/other similar health schemes or in the alternative to claim a fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. The said scheme was, in turn, made applicable by the Goa Government to its employees. The scheme makes provision for meeting the expenditure on day today medical expenses that do not require hospitalisation. 3. After the scheme was introduced by the Government of Goa, the Government employees of the State of Goa, made a representation to the State Government and brought to its notice that some of the retired employees have their spouses working under the Government and thus, the retired Government employees be permitted to claim medical reimbursement through their working spouses. The State Government accepted the representation made by the employees and the first of such Circular is dated 8.11.2000. The same was addressed to the Authorities mentioned in the Circular. The facility made available by the Government was that those pensioners whose spouses are still in the Government service be allowed to exercise an option either to claim fixed medical allowance or the reimbursement of medical expenses through their spouses who are in the Government service. The Circular further provided that those Government servants who do not exercise the option will be deemed to have opted for the fixed medical allowance. The option was to be exercised within a period of 3 months i.e. upto 4.1.2001. It is disputed by the petitioner that the said decision was brought to the notice of all concerned. However, the option made available to the employees under the Circular dated 8.11.2000 is not the end of the matter in that regard. 4. By an Office Memorandum dated 11.10.2004, yet again the option was reiterated and it is not in dispute that this Office Memorandum was sent and circulated to all the Heads of Departments. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Office Memorandum dated 11.10.04 was not circulated by the District Judge amongst the members of the staff working under him. It will have to be presumed that the Office Memorandum 11.10.04 was duly circulated amongst the Government employees working under different Heads of Departments. 5. By this Office Memorandum, the Government prescribed two months' time limit for exercising the option and the time was to run from the date of retirement of an employee. Thus the scheme provided that such of the employees whose spouses are working could either claim the medical reimbursement through the working spouses or in the alternative could claim Rs.100/- as a fixed monthly medical allowance. The Office Memorandum dated 8.11.2000 also provides that in the event if the option is not exercised within the time stipulated, then the employee would be deemed to have opted for the fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. 6. The petitioner has retired after the issuance of the Office Memorandum, but has chosen not to exercise the option within the stipulated period. The petitioner's spouse is still working in the employment of the State and by filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the communication which declined the request made by the petitioner to permit him to avail of the option of claiming medical reimbursement through his spouse in the Government employment. 7. The State Government has filed an affidavit and has pointed out that the Office Memorandum which made available the option was circulated in all the Departments and thus, all the employees would be presumed to have the knowledge in that regard in relation to the option. In this view of the matter, we do not see any illegality committed by the respondents in denying the benefit of medical reimbursement through the working spouse to the Petitioner. Hence, there is no merit in the petition. 8. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if and in case, the Government extends the period for exercising such an option in future, the petitioner be permitted to exercise the option. We have no iota of doubt that in the event the Government decides to extend the period for exercising the option and if the petitioner is eligible for being considered for submitting the option, the Government shall permit the petitioner to exercise the option. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.