[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vikas Nagar vs Union Of India And Anr on 23 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16539/2025
Date of Decision: 23.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIKAS NAGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, Ms. Supriya
Juneja and Mr. Dhananjay Gautam,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
The present proceedings emanate from the directions issued by this
Court, pursuant to which the respondent has passed a reasoned and speaking
order dated 20.06.2025.
2. The controversy in the present case relates to the entitlement and
extent of benefits admissible to a Card holder under the Central Government
Health Scheme (CGHS).
3. Respondent No. 2, Mr. Shyam Singh Khinchee, is a retired officer of
the Government of India. His daughter was married to the petitioner. At the
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:27.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:56:20 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV
relevant time, matrimonial proceedings, including a petition for divorce,
were pending between the petitioner and the daughter of Respondent No. 2.
It is placed on record that the daughter of Respondent No. 2, who was the
wife of the petitioner, has since passed away. The petitioner, however, seeks
action against respondent no.2 who is the father of the petitioner's late wife
for induction of her daughter in the list of beneficiaries under the CGHS.
The impugned order records that the application dated 31.05.2007, along
with the relevant documents, was duly examined in accordance with the
guidelines of the CGHS. The said guidelines permit the inclusion of
separated, divorced, or abandoned daughters as dependents under the
CGHS, subject to the conditions that they reside with the CGHS beneficiary
and have an income below ₹9,000/- per month plus Dearness Relief (DR).
4. It is apparent that the Department proceeded to register the name in
question without being informed as to whether the petitioner's wife was
legally divorced, separated, or otherwise. The impugned order accordingly
records that the failure to disclose the said material facts was solely
attributable to Respondent No. 2. It is recorded that the Department was
under no obligation to verify the facts beyond the affidavit and documents
produced, particularly in the absence of contradictory information in the
public domain or within Department's records.
5. The Department, thus, found that it acted in good faith and in
accordance with applicable policy and procedure while issuing the CGHS
card, and, there was no administrative lapse or procedural irregularity on
part of the Department since there is no evidence of dual benefit having been
claimed or paid. The complaint was, therefore, closed.
6. During the course of hearing, it has also been considered that there is
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:27.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:56:20 Page 2 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV
no evidence of availing the dual benefit.
7. Mr. Aditya Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submits that the name of the petitioner's late wife ought not to have been
inducted, when she was not legally separated and, therefore, the act of
respondent no.2 to the contrary attracts a congnizable offence. He points out
from the information submitted by respondent in response to the application
dated 07.02.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Be that as it
may, the aforesaid act whether would attract any cognizable offence or
otherwise, is not the nature of the inquiry which the Court under Article 226
should undertake.
8. Since the petitioner's application has been rejected by speaking order
while finding that no action is contemplated, the petitioner, therefore, shall
be at liberty to take any other appropriate recourse in accordance with law.
The writ which essentially is a public law remedy, cannot be permitted to be
invoked as a forum for settling private disputes or pursuing personal
vendettas between individuals.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
aks/ap
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:27.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:56:20 Page 3 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV
