W.P.(C) 3551/2022 $~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 23rd, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010087472022 + W.P.(C) 3551/2022 & CM APPL. 10449/2022 VIJAI PRATAP SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, SPC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent authorities to continue the benefits of Central Government Health Scheme (‘CGHS’) to the petitioner post 20.02.2022, and to accept the contributory amount as required under the CGHS. 2. Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed as a Munsif Magistrate on 05.11.1979. On 20.02.2015, the petitioner superannuated from the post of District and Sessions Judge, Agra and was appointed as President of Permanent Lok Adalat, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, on 01.06.2016, the petitioner was appointed as Member (Judicial) at the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’). 3. While serving as Member (Judicial) at NCLT, on 16.10.2019, the petitioner was elevated to Member (Technical) at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’). The petitioner Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:11:44 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 3551/2022 thereafter vacated office on 20.02.2022 on attaining 67 years of age. 4. During the course of his tenure with the NCLT and the NCLAT, the petitioner availed the medical benefits under the CGHS. The said benefits, despite representations sent by the petitioner on 06.01.2022 and 02.02.2022, were however not extended and the CGHS card of the petitioner was not renewed post 20.02.2022. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 6. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that despite representations sent to the respondent authorities on 06.01.2022 and 20.02.2022 to renew the petitioner’s CGHS card, the same was not done. It has further been contested that during the petitioner’s tenure at the NCLT and NCLAT, the petitioner was in receipt of the benefits under CGHS and considering that he vacated office while being a Member (Technical) of the NCLAT, he is entitled for continuation of the benefits provided under the CGHS. 7. On the other hand, the learned SPC for the respondents submits that the petitioner was extended the benefit of the CGHS in accordance with the CS(MA) Rules. He however submits that CGHS pensioner cards are only issued to retired employees of Central Government. He submits that since the petitioner is drawing pension from the Government of UP, he is not entitled to receive the CGHS Pensioner Card. He submits that merely because the petitioner held a certain post after retirement, does not automatically make the petitioner eligible for CGHS card facility. 8. Having heard the counsel and perused the record, this Court is Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:11:44 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 3551/2022 of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the benefits under CGHS. 9. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in receipt of pension from the Government of UP. The petitioner, in his representations to the respondent authorities dated 06.01.2022 and 02.02.2022 had sought to contend that his conditions of service were governed by the NCLAT (Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and other Members), 2015 and Rule 10 provides that “The Chairperson and other Members shall be entitled to the medical facilities as provided in the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.” The thrust of the petitioner’s contention is also that in accordance with these rules, during his tenure with the NCLT and NCLAT, he was in receipt of the benefits under the CGHS. It has consequently been urged that the petitioner be continued to be granted the benefits under the CGHS. 10. The stance of the petitioner, though appears attractive on the first blush, on deeper scrutiny, does not find favour with the Court. 11. Firstly, even though the petitioner has sought to contend that he was entitled to certain benefits as a Member at the NCLT and NCLAT, and has quoted Rule 10 of the NCLAT Rules, 2015 to further his case, the said Rule in itself provides that “chairperson and other members” shall be entitled to receive medical facilities provided in the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. The same only speaks of what the members would be entitled to in their capacity as a member and not thereafter. 12. Secondly, post-retirement CGHS coverage, by itself, is a Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:11:44 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 3551/2022 separate and distinct benefit, with its own eligibility prerequisites. As is the manifest from the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents as well as the eligibility criterion prescribed under CGHS scheme, “pensioners of central government (except pensioners belonging to Railways and the Armed Forces) and their families” are eligible to avail medical facilities under the CGHS. 13. While the petitioner has claimed that he is willing to pay the contribution mandated under the scheme, mere willingness to pay for membership would not bolster the case of the petitioner in the dearth of fulfilment of the eligibility criteria. 14. The respondents have also categorically explained the reasons for non-extension of the benefit of the CGHS to the petitioner in their counter affidavit. It has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner in NCLT and NCLAT was a temporary position on a tenure basis. It has further been elaborated that the CGHS facilities were provided to the petitioner after submitting an application for issue of CGHS card only as a member of NCLT and NCLAT and cannot be extended since the petitioner is not in receipt of pension from the Central Government. 15. Undisputedly, as noted above, the petitioner, after vacating office on 20.02.2022, has been receiving pension from the Government of UP. It is not the case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons are being granted the said benefit of which he is being deprived. 16. In view of the above, no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:11:44 W.P.(C) 3551/2022 17. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. 18. Pending application also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 “SK” Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:11:44