court. To us, the policy decision in formulating contributory scheme for ex-servicemen is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and also in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. We see no infirmity therein. We, therefore, hold that getting free and full medical facilities is not a part of the fundamental right of ex-servicemen." (emphasis supplied) 23. In this regard, she also referred to the General Comment 14 issued by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2000. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Comment relied upon by her reads as under:"The notion of the "highest attainable standard of health" in Article 12(1) of ICESCR takes into account both the individual's biological and socio-economic preconditions and a State's available resources. There is a number of aspects which cannot be addressed solely within the relationship between States and individuals; in particular, good health cannot be ensured by a State, nor can States provide protection against every possible cause of human ill health. Thus genetic factors, individual susceptibility to ill health and the adoption of unhealthy or risky lifestyles may play an important role with respect to an individual's health. Consequently, the right to health must be understood as a right to the enjoyment of a variety of facilities, goods, services and conditions necessary for the realization of the highest attainable standard of health." Thus, it has recognized the obligation and the duty of the state in this regard but also recognized the limitations which a state might face while trying to achieve this ideal. It also provides that all the patients have to be treated equally. "At least six other constitutions set out duties in relation to health, such as the duty on the State to develop health services or to allocate a specific budget to them. Part IV of our Constitution deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. W.P.(C) 7279/2013 Page 13 of 41