Disposed¶32

Vikas Nagar v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC23 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/16539/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGHS beneficiary induction of petitioner's late wife (Respondent No. 2's daughter) amid pending matrimonial proceedings; dependent-daughter eligibility (income below ₹9,000/- p.m. plus DR); non-disclosure of marital status attributed to Respondent No. 2; speaking order dated 20.06.2025 closing complaint; no dual benefit; Article 226 writ not the forum for cognizable-offence inquiry; writ as public law remedy not for private disputes or personal vendettas; RTI Act 2005 application dated 07.02.2022; petition disposed with liberty to pursue other lawful recourse.

What did the court decide?

No affirmative relief; petitioner left at liberty to take any other appropriate recourse in accordance with law. ¶32

Vikas Nagar Vs Union of India and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No affirmative relief; petitioner left at liberty to take any other appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Entitlement and extent of CGHS benefits admissible to a Card holder — specifically whether the petitioner's late wife (daughter of Respondent No. 2) was properly inducted as a beneficiary while matrimonial proceedings were pending and she was not legally separated, and whether action lies against Respondent No. 2 for the induction. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Since the petitioner's application was rejected by a speaking order finding that no action is contemplated, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take any other appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Determining whether the aforesaid act of Respondent No. 2 would attract any cognizable offence or otherwise is not the nature of the inquiry which the Court under Article 226 should undertake.

¶30

Key takeaways

A writ petition, being essentially a public law remedy, cannot be permitted to be invoked as a forum for settling private disputes or pursuing personal vendettas between individuals.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 16539/2025, Vikas Nagar v. Union of India & Anr. (decided 23.02.2026, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., oral). Petitioner sought action against Respondent No. 2 (Shyam Singh Khinchee, father of his late wife) for induction of her name as a CGHS beneficiary while matrimonial proceedings were pending and she was not legally separated. Following this Court's directions, the respondent passed a speaking order dated 20.06.2025 examining the 31.05.2007 application per CGHS guidelines (which admit separated/divorced/abandoned daughters as dependents if residing with the beneficiary and earning below ₹9,000/- p.m. plus DR), attributed the non-disclosure of marital status to Respondent No. 2, found the Department acted in good faith with no lapse and no dual benefit, and closed the complaint. Held: (i) ascertaining whether the act attracts a cognizable offence is not an inquiry for the Court under Article 226; (ii) a writ, being a public law remedy, cannot be invoked to settle private disputes or pursue personal vendettas; (iii) the petitioner, whose application was rejected by speaking order finding no action contemplated, may take any other appropriate recourse in law. Petition disposed of.

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16539/2025

¶4

Date of Decision: 23.02.2026

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

VIKAS NAGAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, Ms. Supriya Juneja and Mr. Dhananjay Gautam, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for R-1.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶12

J U D G E M E N T

¶13

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The present proceedings emanate from the directions issued by this Court, pursuant to which the respondent has passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 20.06.2025.

¶15

The controversy in the present case relates to the entitlement and extent of benefits admissible to a Card holder under the Central Government Health Scheme ( CGHS ).

¶16

Respondent No. 2, Mr. Shyam Singh Khinchee, is a retired officer of the Government of India. His daughter was married to the petitioner. At the

¶17

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶18

Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date :27. 02.2026 14:56:20

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

relevant time, matrimonial proceedings, including a petition for divorce, were pending between the petitioner and the daughter of Respondent No. 2. It is placed on record that the daughter of Respondent No. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner, has since passed away. The petitioner, however, seeks action against respondent no.2 who is the father of the petitioner’s late wife for induction of her daughter in the list of beneficiaries under the CGHS. The impugned order records that the application dated 31.05.2007, along with the relevant documents, was duly examined in accordance with the guidelines of the CGHS. The said guidelines permit the inclusion of separated, divorced, or abandoned daughters as dependents under the CGHS, subject to the conditions that they reside with the CGHS beneficiary and have an income below ₹9,000/- per month plus Dearness Relief (DR).

¶21

It is apparent that the Department proceeded to register the name in question without being informed as to whether the petitioner’s wife was legally divorced, separated, or otherwise. The impugned order accordingly records that the failure to disclose the said material facts was solely attributable to Respondent No. 2. It is recorded that the Department was under no obligation to verify the facts beyond the affidavit and documents produced, particularly in the absence of contradictory information in the public domain or within Department’s records.

¶22

The Department, thus, found that it acted in good faith and in accordance with applicable policy and procedure while issuing the CGHS card, and, there was no administrative lapse or procedural irregularity on part of the Department since there is no evidence of dual benefit having been claimed or paid. The complaint was, therefore, closed.

¶23

During the course of hearing, it has also been considered that there is

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date :27. 02.2026 14:56:20

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

no evidence of availing the dual benefit.

¶30

Mr. Aditya Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the name of the petitioner’s late wife ought not to have been inducted, when she was not legally separated and, therefore, the act of respondent no.2 to the contrary attracts a congnizable offence. He points out from the information submitted by respondent in response to the application dated 07.02.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Be that as it may, the aforesaid act whether would attract any cognizable offence or otherwise, is not the nature of the inquiry which the Court under Article 226 should undertake.

¶31

Since the petitioner’s application has been rejected by speaking order while finding that no action is contemplated, the petitioner, therefore, shall be at liberty to take any other appropriate recourse in accordance with law. The writ which essentially is a public law remedy, cannot be permitted to be invoked as a forum for settling private disputes or pursuing personal vendettas between individuals.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶33

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶34

FEBRUARY 23, 2026 aks/ap

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶37

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date :27. 02.2026 14:56:20

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Vikas Nagar v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Nagar v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan and Ors. Vs A.D.M. (La) (South - West) and Ors.

Ms Nidhi Arya through Special Power of Attorney Holder Shri Ramesh Dalal Vs M/S Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Mamta Chauhan Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Ors.

Mehta College and Institute of Technology & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

M/S Lavanya Ceremonial Pvt. Ltd. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

The Cpio, Ministry of Finance Vs Rattan Mishra

Archana Singh Vs Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited and Ors.

Pradeep Singh Ahluwalia Vs Delhi Tourism & Transporatation Development Corporation and Ors.

Ms Nidhi Arya through Special Power of Attorney Holder Shri Ramesh Dalal Vs M/S Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Ganeshgariya Construction Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

Nagrani Sharma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Smt. Yogita @ Bobby Vs Sh. Vijay Kumar

Shahid Ahmed Ferozie and Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ms. Mandeep Marwah Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.