Disposed

Employees Provident Fund Staff Union v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2026W.P.(C)/12770/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought an expansion of CGHS benefits for EPFO staff at Noida. The court recorded an administrative order stating the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare must decide the matter, directing the Department to act within four weeks and finally disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was treated as a representation; Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directed to decide the petitioner's request within four weeks.

Employees Provident Fund Staff Union Vs Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~108

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010412972026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 12770/2026 & CM APPL. 59257/2026

¶5

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND STAFF UNION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshat Sharma and Mr. Amrit Keshri Nandan, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Siddharth Srivatava, Adv. for UOI

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 02.09.2026

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Staff Union, which is a registered and recognized Trade Union affiliated to the All India E.P.F. Staff Federation, representing the officers and staff of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (“EPFO”), Regional Office, Noida.

¶12

By way of the present petition, directions have been sought to respondent nos. 1 to 4, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 09^th July, 2026, seeking extension of the Central Government Health Scheme (“CGHS”) facility to the employees of the EPFO, at the Regional Officer located at Noida and Greater Noida.

¶13

As per the petition, the said representation has remained undecided till

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2026 at 12:36:00

¶16

date.

¶17

Today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed over to this Court an order dated 13^th August, 2026, issued by the office of the Additional Director, CGHS (Head Quarter), New Delhi, wherein, they have stated that the decision with regard to the extension of the CGHS facility to the petitioner herein shall be taken at the level of Ministry, i.e., Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

¶18

The aforesaid order dated 13^th August, 2026 issued by the office of the Additional Director, CGHS (Head Quarter), New Delhi is taken on record.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India (“UOI”) through Ministry, i.e., Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, puts in appearance. She submits that they shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereof.

¶20

Let the present petition be treated as a representation.

¶21

This Court also takes note that the representation of the petitioner is attached as Annexure P-3 to the present petition.

¶22

Accordingly, let the representation of the petitioner be decided by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, from today.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of.

¶24

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶25

SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/KR

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2026 at 12:36:00

Employees Provident Fund Staff Union v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees Provident Fund Staff Union v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhya Saluja Vs Wapcos Limited and Another & Anr.

Anoop Seth Vs Punjab National Bank

Mrs. Neeru Sehgal Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 15, New Delhi & Ors.

Mrs Neeru Sehgal Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 15 New Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nav Bharat Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

Chakarala Likhith Reddy Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences