Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harendra Singh Bhadouriya vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16423
1 WP-18669-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18669 of 2023
HARENDRA SINGH BHADOURIYA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Jagwani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Dy. Solicitor General for respondents
UOI.
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following
relief:-
"1. May kindly set aside the status report of ECHS card no. ECHS
Card no. JB000006021521 and card no. JB 000006021543
Annexure P/10 in which card has been blocked.
2. Respondents may kindly be directed to unblock the ECHS Card
no. JB000006021521 which has been issued to the father of
petitioner and card no. JB 000006021543 which has been issued to
the mother of petitioner.
3. Respondents may kindly be directed to reimburse all the
expenses approximately 36,000/- Rs. of the hospital arising out of
the medical emergency on dated 23/02/2023 in favour of
petitioner.
4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court think fits as per the
case of the petitioner and cost of the petition."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16423
2 WP-18669-2023
2. Learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection with regard
to jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition in view of the
availability of remedy before Armed Forces Tribunal.
3. It is gathered from the averments made in the petition that the
petitioner was working on the post of Regulating Petty Officer, which is
equivalent to the Hawaldar. He stood retire from service w.e.f. 31/08/2020.
The petitioner applied for benefit under ECH Scheme in relation to his
parents and has paid membership fees for lifetime. The grievance of the
petitioner is that even though he has taken lifetime membership under the
ECH Scheme, the benefit of the said scheme is not extended to petitioner.
4. In view of the averments made in the writ petition, if the objection
raised by the respondents' counsel is considered, it is gathered that issue
raised by the petitioner falls within the definition of service matters.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in
the writ petition does not fall within the definition of service matters.
However, the said contention is not acceptable in view of Clause IV, which
provides for any other matter whatsoever to be included within the terms
service matters.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the order
passed by this Court in the case of Sita Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.
(W.P.no. 18311/2023), wherein also, the writ petition was dismissed in view
of the remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16423
3 WP-18669-2023
Parashotam Dass, (2025) 5 SCC 786 and submitted that the Apex Court has
held that the jurisdiction of the High Court is not excluded.
8. The arguments so made is considered.
9. In the case of Parashotam Dass (supra), the order of Armed Forces
Tribunal was challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, which was held to be not maintainable by the High
Court and the Apex Court in that context held that the High Court's
jurisdiction is not ousted. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not
approached the Armed Forces Tribunal so far and therefore, the judgment
rendered in the case of Parashotam Dass (supra), is of no help to the
petitioner.
10. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is not entertained and is
accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner shall have liberty to raise his
grievance before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
