As per case facts, the Petitioner sought reimbursement for medical expenses incurred abroad, for a Tinnitus Masker device, and for future foreign treatment from his employer, Oil India Limited. His ... requests were rejected by the employer, who only approved the purchase of a hearing aid up to a maximum amount. The Petitioner challenged these rejections, asserting violations of the OIL Employees' Medical Attendance Rules, 2018 and the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. The question arose whether, under the governing regime, a legally enforceable right existed for reimbursement of a Tinnitus Masker and foreign medical treatment, and if the employer's actions were arbitrary or ultra vires. Finally, the High Court ruled that the Rules of 2018 established a closed, structured entitlement system. It determined that the Tinnitus Masker was not enumerated, foreign treatment outside official travel was not contemplated, and prior approval for any referral was mandatory. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's claims for reimbursement were not sustainable under the Rules, and dismissed the claims for damages and an inquiry, citing disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.