APHC010334942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 670 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-22 [3552] T. Suvarna Raju ...Appellant Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr.D. S. SIVADARSHAN Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.JUPUDI V. K. YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL), Mr.K SAIRAM MURTHY CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 30th January 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) The unsuccessful writ petitioner preferred present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the order of the learned single Judge, dated 14.12.2023, passed in W.P.No.28402 of 2021, by which the writ petition came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) The appellant-writ petitioner holds the post of Assistant Commandant/Exe., at Central Industrial Security Force (for short “CISF”), Simhadri, Visakhapatnam. By order, dated 08.04.2018, he was transferred 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 to Simhadri Super Thermal Power Plant, CISF Unit from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., both at Visakhapatnam. (b) After appellant got transferred to new station, his wife fell sick and was diagnosed with Hepatocellular Jaundice and chronic liver disease. She was admitted for treatment at AIG Hospital, Hyderabad, where the doctors had advised for liver transplantation surgery. Appellant stated to have sought for necessary medical support from the respondents, however, as they did not respond positively, shifted her to CARE Hospital at Visakhapatnam for undergoing surgery. The hospital had given quotation for Rs.25,44,500/- for undertaking liver transplant surgery, of which 85% to be paid at the time of registration and remaining within 24 hours on completing surgery. (c) The appellant had requested respondents 2 and 3 through 5th respondent for issuance of Letter of Credit enabling to proceed with surgery. However, the 1st respondent issued letter, dated 27.02.2019, to the 4th respondent approving for Letter of Credit for only Rs.11,50,000/- plus Rs.2,50,000/- as per CGHS rates and further advised that additional amount, if any to be borne by the appellant from his own resources. Eventually, the surgery got completed on 02.04.2019, however, she got diagnosed with postoperatively developed stress cardiomyopathy with heart failure, and as such, was prolonged with ventilation and subsequently passed away on 16.04.2019 at the hospital. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 (d) The appellant had incurred additional money for the treatment undertaken post the surgery. The appellant made several communications with the 1st respondent and lastly, ended up with issuing legal notice, dated 25.06.2021, seeking refund of entire medical expenditure incurred over and above the amount that was sanctioned earlier to, however, the same was not acceded. Hence, he preferred the writ petition. (e) The appellant, in support of the claim for refund, has rested case on Rule 62 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, “the CISF Rules, 2001”) read with Memorandum of Understanding, dated 06.04.2012, (“MoU”), executed between respondents 1 and 5, which, inter alia, extended the benefit of medical facilities to the Members of CISF deployed in Public Sector Undertakings on par with their regular employees. (f) Whereas, the 1st respondent has taken a plea that in view of subsequent Medical Attendance and Treatment Rules of 2016 (for short, “MAT Rules, 2016”), the 1st respondent was no more obligated to extend the medical facilities to the CISF personnel deployed with it on par with their regular employees, rather such deployed CISF personnel were merely entitled to medical claims at CGHS rates and the MoU between the 1st respondent and 5th respondent had to give way to the statutory rules. (g) The 5th respondent Deputy Commandant, CISF, in a way supported the case of the appellant by taking stand that CISF personnel 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 deployed with the 1st respondent to be extended with medical facilities on par with the employees of 1st respondent and that the MoU between the parties would be binding in that regard and the MAT Rules, 2016 would not have any consequence nor annul the contractual obligation under MoU and any unilateral alteration of the terms of MoU would be non est and not binding on the 5th respondent. 3. 3. The learned Single Judge, after having analysed the applicable CISF Rules, 2001, the clauses of MoU and also latter MAT Rules, 2016, came to conclusion that the parties were governed and regulated by MoU insofar as extending medical benefits to the CISF personnel deployed at 1st respondent and that since the MAT Rules, 2016 purported to unilaterally amend or alter the clauses of MoU without the consent and knowledge of the 5th respondent, the same was held to be impermissible and not binding. 4. The learned Single Judge further went into the aspect of consequences of non-adherence to the clauses of MoU and having taken note of Clause (28) of the MoU, which dealt with clause of termination, has ultimately concluded that the 5th respondent, instead of hanging to insist the 1st respondent to honour the obligations otherwise agreed under MoU, should have resorted to and taken steps for cancellation of the MoU, and in a way, by not doing so, it was held that the 5th respondent has acquiesced to continue their services in the claimant organisation i.e. 1st 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 respondent accepting the consequences of MAT Rules, 2016. Therefore, the writ petition came to be dismissed. 5. We have heard Sri D.S.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms.C.Tejasree, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Sairam Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagnadutt, learned Central Government Counsel, for 5th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the right of the appellant to claim medical expenses on par with employees of 1st respondent has been routed by way of statutory rules, under Rule 62 of the CISF Rules, 2001, and further also under contractual arrangement by way of MoU, dated 06.04.2012, entered between 1st respondent and 5th respondent, therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in completely ignoring the statutory rules and testing the case merely on the touch stone of contractual terms under MoU. He further contended that merely because the 5th respondent did not take any steps for seeking cancellation of MoU, the same by itself would not amount to acquiescence inasmuch as the right of appellant to claim medial benefits flows from the statutory right as well. Lastly, it is contended that the latter MAT Rules, 2016, cannot limit or curtail the right of appellant to claim medical benefits, otherwise envisaged under Rule 62 of the CISF Rules, 2001, and utmost the MAT Rules, 2016 could only apply to the employees of 1st respondent, 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 but not to those who otherwise get deployed to work with their organisation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent tried to support the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Much emphasis has been laid on MAT Rules, 2016 to contend that the same would have over-riding effect on the terms and conditions agreed under MoU, therefore, learned counsel tried to justify the action of 1st respondent to limit the medical claim to the extent of CGHS rates. 8. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent, on the other hand, supported the case of the appellant, by contending that as the right to claim for medical benefits since emanates from the statutory rules, besides the MoU, the subsequent MAT Rules, 2016, cannot unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of MoU without the knowledge of 5th respondent, hence, the 1st respondent is obligated to extend the medical benefits to the appellant on par with their employees. 9. In order to appreciate aforesaid rival contentions, it is profitable to refer to the relevant provisions, which fall for consideration: (a) Section 14(1) and (2) of the CISF Act reads as follows: 14. Deputation of the Force to industrial undertakings in public sector, joint venture or private sector.- (1) Subject to any general directions which may be issued by the Central Government, it shall be lawful for the Director-General, on a 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 request received in this behalf from the Managing-Director concerned of an industrial undertaking in public sector, joint venture or private sector showing the necessity thereof, to depute such number of members of the Force as the Director- General may consider necessary for the protection and security of that industrial undertaking and any installations attached thereto and the members of the Force so deputed shall be at the charge of the Managing-Director: Provided that in the case of an undertaking owned, controlled or managed,- (i) by a Government company of which the Central Government is not a member; (ii) by a corporation established by or under a Provincial or State Act, no such request shall be entertained unless it is made with the consent of the Government of the State in which the undertaking is situate. (2) If the Director-General is of the opinion that circumstances necessitating the deputation of the members of the Force in relation to an industrial undertaking under sub-section (1) have ceased to exist, or for any other reason it is necessary so to do, he may, after informing the Managing-Director of that industrial undertaking, withdraw the members of the Force so deputed: Provided that the Managing Director may, on giving three month's notice in writing to the Director-General require that the members of the Force so deputed shall be withdrawn, and the Managing-Director shall be relieved from the charge from the date of expiration of such notice or from any earlier date on which the Force is so withdrawn.” (b) Rule 62 of the CISF Rules, 2001, reads as follows: “Medical facilities - Members of the Force shall be entitled to the facilities of the Central Government Health Scheme and in places where 8 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 these facilities are not available, they shall be governed by the Central Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944: Provided that when they are deployed in a Public Sector Undertaking: (i) in a case where such public sector undertaking provides medical facilities to its employees, such members of the Force shall be entitled to avail such facilities free of charge; and (ii) If such facilities are not available, the authorized medical attendant for such members of the Force will be as provided in Central Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1944.” (c) Clause 20 of the MoU, reads as follows: “20. The Client Organization shall provide medical facilities to the CISF personnel and their families strictly at par with their own employees. The Client Organisation shall also reimburse the medical claims of family members of CISF personnel who are staying away from the unit at par with the rates given to their own employees. These will include the families of personnel staying in barracks, SOs Mess and GOs Messes whose families are not staying with them. In case of hospitalization/injury of CISF personnel while on duty, the Client Organization will bear the cost at the rate at par to their own employees.” (d) Clause 13.3 of the MAT Rules, 2016 reads as follows: “13.3. Project/stations where there is no company hospital facility, CISF personnel may be allowed to avail OPD facilities in a notified hospital for the project/station at CGHS rates or in government hospitals at actual rates. For hospitalization, they may go to the nearby Government hospital or hospitals under CGHS scheme where the Central Govt. employees are allowed to take treatment and reimbursement shall be made at actual rate for government hospital and at CGHS rates for CGHS empanelled hospitals.” 9 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 10. Learned Single Judge, on appreciation of aforesaid provisions, has held as under: “18. No doubt, the relevant revised Medical Attendance Rules referred to supra in clear and unambiguous terms limits the right of the CISF personnel to get medical facilities at par with the own employees of the 1st respondent corporation. In the absence of any proof placed on record nor even pleaded that the Medical Attendance Rules were formulated with the active consent and knowledge of the other party to the MoU, undisputedly, the same amounts to unilaterally changing a clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding without the consent and knowledge of the other part to the said MoU. Such a unilateral alteration of conditions of an understanding is impermissible in the eye of law and the same does not bind the other party as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. More particularly in view of the observation made by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies : (2022) 4 SCC 363) that amendment having retrospective operation divesting employee of benefit already granted to him under existing rules is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand provided the other provisions of the Memorandum of Undertaking do not take the matter further.” 11. We also have no hesitation in approving aforesaid view expressed by learned Single Judge. We are further of the view that the purport of stipulating Clause 20 in MoU, which extended medical facilities to CISF personnel deployed at 1st respondent requires to be examined. The genesis for incorporating such condition in MoU in a way emanates from the statutory framework under provisions of Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, “the CISF Act”) read with CISF Rules, 2001. 10 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 Section 14(2) of the CISF Act bestows legal obligation on CISF to honour the request from the concerned Public Sector Undertaking to depute the members of CISF force for protection and safety of the said undertaking. Further, only if in the opinion of the Director General there exists circumstances necessitating withdrawal of deputation, then alone he may do so after informing the concerned Public Sector Undertaking. 12. Further, Rule 62 of the CISF Rules, 2001, categorically envisages that wherever CISF personnel have been deployed in Public Sector Undertakings, they shall be entitled to avail the facilities free of charge on par with the employees of such Public Sector Undertakings. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that there is a pious and statutory obligation on CISF to depute its force for safeguarding and protecting the industrial undertakings and, in turn, the personnel, who have been deputed there, were made eligible to claim medical facilities on par with the regular employees of such Public Sector Undertaking. 13. In that context, when there was a requisition from 1st respondent, the 5th respondent, since was mandatorily obligated to depute the forces, both entered into MoU providing for specific terms and conditions of such engagement. Clause 20 of the said MoU, more or less, couched in terms of Rule 62 of the CISF Rules, 2001, obligated 1st respondent to extend medical benefits to the deployed CISF employees on par with its regular 11 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 employees. The right of 1st respondent to requisition deployment of CISF personnel, therefore, is circumscribed by Rule 62. So long as said agreement is in force, there is no way that the 1st respondent can wriggle out of its obligation to extend medical facilities to CISF personnel on par with its employees. 14. Though learned counsel for the 1st respondent tried to lay much emphasis on MAT Rules, 2016, to contend that terms of MoU, and in particular, obligation to extend medical facilities to members of CISF on par with employees of 1st respondent stand obliterated, in our opinion, has no substance. MAT Rules, 2016 are part of H.R. Policy Manual of 1st respondent and that they would apply only to the employees directly recruited and working with 1st respondent, but not for those deployed in pursuance to a statutory obligation. The CISF personnel who have been sent on deputation in pursuance to the statutory mandate under Section 14(1) of the CISF Act, cannot be construed as the regular employees of 1st respondent to apply its H.R. Policy Manual, rather, the CISF personnel so deputed are governed by Rule 62 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which specifically extend medical facilities on par with the employees of the Public Sector Undertaking in case of deployment. 15. In the teeth of statutory prescription under Section 14(1) of the CISF Act, the MoU between the parties cannot be seen as an isolated act like 12 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 any other contractual arrangement for safeguarding and protecting the industry. 16. Therefore, learned Single Judge fell in error in not rightly appreciating the purport of Section 14(1) of the CISF Act r/w. Rule 62 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Merely, because there is an exit clause under MoU, and that the 5th respondent chooses not to invoke the same, and rather continues with the agreement, the same can neither amount to acquiescence in accepting the revised H.R. Policy Manual, which otherwise also does not apply to the personnel of CISF. We, therefore, hold that the latter MAT Rules, 2016 in the form of H.R. Policy Manual, absolutely have no application to the CISF personnel who have been deputed to work with 1st respondent by virtue of the statutory prescription. Consequently, the 1st respondent cannot wriggle out of its obligation to extend medical facilities to the CISF personnel working on deputation on par with its regular employees. 17. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the balance medical expenditure incurred by the appellant/writ petitioner by treating him on par with the regular employee of the 1st respondent. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing 13 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.670 of 2024 which, the respondents shall clear the outstanding amounts along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from today till the date of realisation. 18. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs