^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2711 of 2002 Petitioner C. P. Gandhi, S/o Late ShriT. R. Gandhi, aged about 60yeai-s, Ex- Deputy Greneral Maaager, Incharge Bhilai Refractories Plaat, Bhart Refractories Licaited, Maroda - Bhilai. R/o Plot No. 40/46, Strcet - 13 Pragati Nagai', Risali, TahsU and Distdct- Durg Versus Respondents 1. Union oflndia, Through Secretaiy, Miaistry ofSteel, Goveraiaent of India, Udyog Bhawaa, New Delhi, 2. Bharat Refractories Liaiited, Through Chairaian-cuin-Maaagiag Dircctor, Indira Marg, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City (Jharkhand). 3. Depuly General Manager (Incharge) Bhilai Refractories Plant, Bharat Refractories Limited, Maroda, BhUai, TahsUand District - Diii^ (C.G.). 4. Steel Aufhority of India Limited, Through Matiagiag Director, BhUai Steel Plaat, Ispat Bhawaa, BhUai Nagar, Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) Siag?e Beaach : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agaihotri. Petitioner by Shri V. G. Tamiaskar, Advocate. Respondents No. 2 aiid 3 by Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, Semor Advocate with Shri Hexaant Solapurkar, Advocate. Respondent No.4 by Miss Rita Halder, Advocate. ORAL ORDER ( 3rd Januaiy, 2006) The foUowing order oftibe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner who was employee of Respondents No. 2 and 3 retired on 28.2.2001 on attamiag fhe age of58 years of service. Terms aad conditions of serv^ices are govemed by terois of settleiaent (Annexure R-2/2). The settlement was arrived at on 14.10.1985 ia the coiirse of concUiation proceediags held by the Assistaat Labozir Conmiissioner, | g gg, -:i?b-jgi*'?BsN-l-l|.l-;rH.:'..i;,,J»s- Raipxu' aad Coucilia^onOflScer, in the Industrial Dispiite No. 14/83 i between M/s Bharat Refi-ectories Ltd., Bhilai Refractorries Plaat and Refractories Workers Union (representative Union) under Section 43 ofthe M. P. Industrial Relations Act 1960 (Annexure R-2/2). Clause 11 provides for retiral benefits Claiise 11.3 clearly provides fhat after retibreinent fhe eniployee an.d his/her spouse shaU confmue to receive xnedical benefits iii fhe Conipaay run dispensaries/hospitals ia case fhey present thexaselves for laedical treatment. Accordiiig to fhe petitioner he is siiffermg froia Renal CoUc (kidney stone) aad his wife is siiffering fromi high blood pressure. According to fhe petitioner tfae CQnipany runs dispensary/hospitals do not have facilities for treatment of above stated disease. The petitioner has fUed fhis petition under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India seeking a dircction agamst fhe Respondents No. 2 aad 3 to provide free comprehensive niedical treatoaient to the petitioner and his wife, Shri V. G. Tamaskar, leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat all other rctired eraployees are extended fhe raedical facilities except fhe petitioner and his wife. The petitioner aad his wife are ready to take Biedical treatnients at coiapaay nui dispensaxy/hospitals but tfae conipany nin dispensary/hospitals do not have xae.dical facilities for treatoient ofraedical problenis ofthe petitioner and his wtfe. Shri V. V, S. Moorthy, learaed senior Advocate with Shri Heniant Solapzirkar, Advocate, appearmg for fhe Respondents No. 2 and 3 admits ternis and setttement iinder the agreement, however learaed coiinsel siibinits fhat fhe respondent Coiapany is iinder finaacial crises and fhe Respondents No, 2 aiid 3 are considering to wifhdraw niedical facilities extended to fhe eiaployees aiid retired einployees, in case fhey do not receive fiaancial aid froin the BhUai Steel Plarit. r 4. Haviag heard leanied counsel for the parties aad haviiig perused the records, it is fouad fhat fhe service conditions of fhe einployees workmg as well as retired employees offhe Respoudents No. 2 and 3 are govemed by the terms of ffaie settleiaent of the agreeBient dated 14.10.1985. Said setflenient clearly provides for grant of medical facilities to fhe retired eniployees also. Admittedly, fhe petitioner is a retired eniployee of fhe Respondents No, 2 and 3. If fhe retircd eraployees and fheir spouses are entifled to niedical facilities, the petitioner aad his wife could not be denied reinibursenient of isiedical treataient, which is not available ui fhe company nin. dispensary/hospitals and tlie retired eraployees had to take szich inedical treatment outside. The petitioiier and his wife are suffermg froni serious ailment which rcqiiires miisiediate medical treatnient. The petitioner is accordiagly entitled to fhe medical facilities and reimburseBient ofthe nxedical treatnient as per temis and conditious. 5. For fhe rcasons stated above the petition is aUowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge