Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shamsher Singh And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 19 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150946
CWP-30760-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
CWP-30760-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.11.2024
Shamsher Singh and Another
....Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocates
for the petitioners
Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respodent-UOI
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the action of
respondents, wherein without passing any formal order towards rejection as also
towards entitlement of petitioner No.1 to continue dependency under the ECHS
Scheme Post on attaining the age of 25 years due to disability chronic renal
failure, which has further been aggravated, despite the kidney transplant with the
donation by his grandfather, to acute graft dis-function, which is permanent and
life long disability, for which treatment is imperative till he is alive. The parents of
the petitioner are left with no source of income, it continue such treatment beseech
this Court, the issue being squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court
in Harteg Singh and Another vs. Union of India and Others, CWP-12658-
2017, decided on 27.07.2017, Annexure P-7, to which no challenge was made,
relevant paras whereof read thus:
"xx xx xx
8. ECHS was floated vide letter dated December 30, 2002
(Annexure P-2), followed by clarification dated December 18,
2007 (Annexure P-2) providing defence pensioners and their
dependents, free medical treatment in empanelled hospital(s).
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150946
CWP-30760-2024 (O&M) - 2-
The unemployed sons of army pensioners were granted free
medical treatment till the age of 25 years but the age bar was
lifted in case dependent is having lifelong permanent disability.
Vide Annexure P-2, all the mental and physical lifelong
disabilities were covered. In the case in hand, both the kidneys
of petitioner No.1 (son of petitioner No.2 - army pensioner)
have failed and he was issued White Card in the year 2013. He
was being granted medical treatment, free of cost for dialysis
and kidney failure treatment. However, vide letter dated
January 02, 2017 (Annexure P-10), he has been informed that
letter dated November 20, 2015 (Annexure P-11) has
retrospective effect and his White Card is being taken away
meaning thereby he is not entitled to free medical treatment.
9. The ECHS was authorized by the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, letter dated December 30, 2002
(Annexure P-2) and the 2 nd paragraph of the scheme states
that son with lifelong medical disability will be eligible for
lifelong medical treatment. The relevant part of the same is
reproduced as under:-
"The Scheme would cater for medicare of all Ex
servicemen in receipt of pension including disability
pension and family pensioners, as also dependents to
include wife/husband, legitimate children and wholly
dependent parents. The son with permanent disability of
any kind (physical or mental) of entitled category of
ECHS would be eligible for lifelong facility of medical
treatment."
10. The aim of the Act ibid is for providing equal opportunities
and protecting the rights and full participation of the persons
with disabilities with the non-disabled persons. The Act has
been formulated with the objective of taking care of the
disabled persons in Government service and taking care of
them in the matters of appointment, promotion, retention etc.
whereas ECHS is a contributory scheme of the army personnel
and has been formulated with the objective of the taking
medical care of the army pensioners as well as their families.
The children of army pensioners with lifelong disabilities were
given lifelong medical treatment by the Government and the
same cannot be changed by mere policy letter. The respondents
cannot take away the White Cards which are already issued to
the petitioners by making amendment in the Act. Even if any
amendment is to be made, it cannot be retrospective. The
respondents cannot change provisions of the original scheme to
which Government sanction was accorded. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others, (1979) 2 SCC 409 has held that mere
claim of change of policy would not be sufficient to exonerate
Government from its liability and obligations and the
Government would be compelled to carry out promise made by
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150946
CWP-30760-2024 (O&M) - 3-
it. In Lalaram & others vs. Jaipur Development Authority
& another, (2016) 11 SCC 31, the Apex Court further stressed
on the importance of complying with a promise made by the
State on the basis of a public policy in the absence of which
immense prejudice is caused to the other party involved and
invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel for ensuring the
same.
11. The law cannot be changed retrospectively other than by
legislative action and even if the legislature may have the
power to legislate retrospective laws, the same cannot be taken
away the accrued rights. In the instant case, respondents have
attempted to tacitly extinguish the rights of petitioners in a
retrospective manner and that too, through an administrative
action which is clearly impermissible in law. The Apex Court
in Ex-Major N.C. Singhal vs. Director General, Armed
Forces Medical Services, New Delhi & another, (1972) 4
SCC 765, has held that conditions of services cannot be altered
or modified to prejudice an employee/ retiree by a subsequent
administrative instruction having retrospective effect. 12. In the
light of what has been discussed above, instant petitions are
allowed. Impugned orders/letters dated January 18, 2015
(Annexure P-11) and January 02, 2017 (Annexure P-10) are set
aside and the respondents are directed to continue the treatment
of petitioners and extend all the benefits to them in the light of
Lifelong Medical Facilities as per ECHS dated December 30,
2002 (Annexure P-2) and Clarification dated December 18,
2007 (Annexure P-3)."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents despite his best efforts, has been
unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in
the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law.
3. In wake of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms
of Harteg Singh (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
19.11.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
