Bidya Devi Vs Union of India & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bidya Devi Vs Union of India & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on the FMA claim. Petition permitted to be withdrawn with leave and liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law; exemption application disposed of; merits left open.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked at the first instance for pensionary/retiral benefits, or whether the Petitioner must first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. +1 more

Court's answer

The dispute raised in the petition pertains to pensionary/retiral benefits arising out of the service of a Central Government employee and ordinarily falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Ratio / Principle

In view of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, and therefore the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked at the first instance.

Key takeaways

Leave and liberty granted to the Petitioner to withdraw the petition and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law.ratio¶21
The Court has not commented on the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF DELHI (Sanjeev Narula, J.), W.P.(C) 7089/2026, decided 20.05.2026 - Bidya Devi v. Union of India & Anr.: Petitioner, a family pensioner and widow of a retired Department of Posts employee and a CGHS beneficiary residing where no CGHS dispensary is available, sought a direction to sanction and disburse Fixed Medical Allowance at Rs. 1,000/- per month in lieu of CGHS facilities, with arrears from 1st February, 2015 and interest. HELD: the dispute pertains to pensionary/retiral benefits arising out of the service of a Central Government employee and ordinarily falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, and the writ jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked at the first instance. Petition permitted to be withdrawn with leave and liberty to approach the Tribunal; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits and left all rights and contentions of the parties open; disposed of.

$~147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 7089/2026

BIDYA DEVI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sajal Awasthi, Adv. for Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Adv. (Legal Aid Counsel)

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 20.05.2026

CM APPL. 34739/2026-EXEMPTION

Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7089/2026

The Petitioner, a family pensioner and widow of a retired employee of the Department of Posts, has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to sanction and disburse Fixed Medical Allowance¹ at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, in lieu of Central Government Health Scheme² facilities, along with arrears from 1^st February, 2015 and interest thereon. It is the case of the Petitioner that, being a CGHS beneficiary residing in an

1 “FMA”

2 “CGHS”

This is a digitally signed order.

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 23/05/2026 at 12:37:54

area where no CGHS dispensary is available near her place of residence, she is entitled to FMA in terms of the applicable Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, but the same has not been released despite repeated representations.

At the outset, this Court has considered the maintainability of the present petition. The dispute raised in the petition pertains to pensionary/retiral benefits arising out of the service of a Central Government employee and ordinarily falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. ,³ the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, and therefore, the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked at the first instance.

In view of the above, counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law.

Leave and liberty as prayed for, are granted.

The Court has not commented on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

Disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

MAY 20, 2026/alka

3 (1997) 3 SCC 261.

This is a digitally signed order.

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 23/05/2026 at 12:37:54