Holding that financial constraints cannot be used as a shield to deny post-retirement healthcare, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed MARKFED to extend medical reimbursement benefits to retired employees on a par with those in service. The Bench made it clear that any contrary approach would be totally capricious and irrational.Justice Brar also admonished the attempt to deny healthcare to retirees on fiscal grounds, while placing the issue in the larger framework of dignity and equality in old age. “This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a public body such as the respondent-federation cannot shrug off its responsibility to extend medical reimbursement benefits to its retired employees by simply citing financial difficulties,” Justice Brar asserted.The court added that the Corporation had availed the services of the employees during “the prime and youthful years of their lives”. These employees required medical care and reimbursement “the most” after retirement, when age-related health problems began. To deny medical reimbursement at this stage was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.Justice Brar asserted: “The respondents have not been able to point out any rule, regulation or policy to show that retired State government employees, who form the benchmark for parity under the governing resolutions, are treated differently. In the absence of any such intelligible differentia, placing retired employees of the respondent-corporation in a disadvantaged class is constitutionally impermissible.”In his detailed order, the Bench observed that it was undisputed that the service rules of the respondent-federation were governed by the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees (Common Cadre) Service Rules, 1990.“The present petition revolves around the foundational question of whether the term ‘employees’ in Rule 4.3 of the Rules of 1990, for the purpose of medical reimbursement, encompasses both serving and retired employees, or is confined only to serving employees,” Justice Brar asserted.Referring to the issue, the court placed reliance on binding precedents to reiterate that fiscal stress was no defence against lawful entitlements. It referred to Division Bench and Supreme Court rulings categorically holding that financial hardship could not be a ground to deny legitimate medical reimbursement benefits to retired employees “when the governing service conditions place them at par with serving employees.”Justice Brar referred to another ruling before observing that carving out two classes—serving and retired—for medical reimbursement had repeatedly been held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Allowing the petition, the court directed the respondent-federation to treat retired and serving employees alike for the implementation of the 1990 Rules for the purpose of medical reimbursement.