{"id":131749,"date":"2006-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006"},"modified":"2017-07-21T10:51:46","modified_gmt":"2017-07-21T05:21:46","slug":"confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen … vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen … vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji Y.K. Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan, S.H. Kapadia, C.K. Thakker Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (civil)  210 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nCONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS & ORS.\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nCJI Y.K. SABHARWAL,K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,S.H. KAPADIA,C.K. THAKKER P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
C.K. THAKKER, J.\n<\/p>\n
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is
\nfiled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by petitioner-
\nConfederation of ex-serviceman Associations for an
\nappropriate writ directing the respondent-Union of India
\nto recognize the right of full and free medicare of ex-
\nservicemen, their families and dependents treating such
\nright as one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under
\nthe Constitution of India. A prayer is also made to direct
\nthe respondents to take necessary steps to ensure that
\nfull and free medicare is provided to ex-servicemen, their
\nfamilies and dependents on par with in-service defence
\npersonnel. A further prayer is also made to extend such
\nmedicare for all diseases including serious and terminal
\ndiseases, even if treatment for those diseases is not
\navailable at Military Hospitals.
\nThe case of the petitioner is that there are certain
\nex-servicemen Associations which have formed a
\nConfederation in furtherance of common cause for
\nwelfare of ex-defence personnel.
\nThey are;\n<\/p>\n
(i) Air Force Association;\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) India Ex-services League;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Naval Foundation;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Disabled War Veterans (India); and\n<\/p>\n
(v) War Widows Association.\n<\/p>\n
 Aims and objects of the Confederation have been
\nset out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
\nproduced at Annexure P-1. According to the petitioner,
\nthere are approximately 15 lakhs ex-servicemen in the
\ncountry alongwith 45 lakhs dependents and family
\nmembers. The petitioner has no information regarding
\nmedical facilities provided to ex-servicemen prior to the
\nSecond World War (1939-44).  After the Second World
\nWar, however, certain information is available. A book
\nedited by Mr. Bishweshwar Dass was published titled
\n“Combined Inter-services : Historical Section : India and
\nPakistan”, wherein it has been stated that the
\nGovernment had accepted full responsibility for medicare
\nof disabled ex-servicemen as also for their rehabilitation.
\nDisabilities, which were categorized, were as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tLoss of limb or use of limb;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tGeneral medical and surgical disability;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tLoss of speech;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tDeafness;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tBlindness and material impairment of vision;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tPulmonary Tuberculosis;\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\tMental diseases.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner further stated that in 1962, more
\nmedical facilities were provided to ex-army personnel. In
\n1983, regulations were framed known as Regulations for
\nMedical Services of Armed Forces which restricted
\nentitlement to disability for which pension had been
\ngranted.  No treatment was authorized for serious
\ndiseases, like pulmonary tuberculosis, leprosy and
\nmental diseases even if such diseases were attributable
\nto Army Services if treatment of such diseases was not
\nordinarily available from service sources.
\nAccording to the petitioner, various Committees
\nwere constituted to examine the issue as to availability of
\nmedical facilities to members of Armed Forces. In 1984,
\na High Level Committee headed by the then Rajya
\nRaksha Mantri Shri K.P. Singh Deo was set up which
\nconducted thorough study of the problems of ex-defence
\npersonnel for the first time. The Committee
\nrecommended enhancement of facilities and
\nimprovement of medical services to ex-servicemen.
\nBetween 1986 and 1990, several steps had been taken in
\nthe direction of extending more benefits to ex-servicemen
\nthrough various committees and commissions, such as,
\nDharni Committee (1986), CDM Study Report (1987),
\nReport on Army Logistics Philosophy (1987), Verma
\nCommittee (1988), Narsimhan Committee (1990), Vijay
\nSingh Committee (1990), etc. In 1993, Lt. Gen. N. Foley
\nCommittee again examined the problem of medicare to
\nex-servicemen. It noted with concern the manner in
\nwhich ex-servicemen had been treated in providing
\nmedical facilities which were shocking. It observed that
\nex-servicemen were virtually neglected by the
\nGovernment. It felt that there was a feeling of frustration
\nin ex-servicemen.  It, therefore, suggested that there
\nshould be no discrimination of treatment between in-
\nservice personnel and ex-servicemen. The Committee
\nmade certain recommendations both on long term basis
\nas well as on short term basis. Again, the Fifth Pay
\nCommission examined the medical and other facilities to
\npensioners of the Central Government employees and
\nalso to ex-servicemen. The Commission noted the
\nexpenditure incurred on various categories of Central
\nGovernment employees, and after examining the entire
\nissue, recommended that the Ministry of Defence should
\nembark at once for expansion of medical facilities to ex-
\nservicemen. It suggested creation of ex-servicemen wards
\nin Civil Hospitals in liaison with State Governments. It
\nalso recommended Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
\nto set up Veteran’s Hospitals where a concentration of
\ncivil and military pensioners existed. In addition, it
\nproposed a medical allowance of Rs.100 per month for
\nex-servicemen living in rural areas who could not avail
\nthemselves of military\/civil hospital facilities.
\nAccording to the petitioner, the Pay Commission
\nmissed the basic thrust of the requirement of providing
\nfree and full medicare to ex-servicemen. Since the
\nRegulations relating to medical services to Armed Forces
\nexpressly excluded the treatment at Government
\nhospitals to ex-servicemen for serious diseases like
\npulmonary tuberculosis, leprosy and mental diseases,
\nany amount of facilities would not be sufficient to ex-
\nservicemen suffering from such diseases. The
\nRegulations were also silent about modern serious and
\nterminal diseases like AIDS, Cancer, etc. and no
\nprovision was made for expenses on essential treatments
\nlike bypass surgery, laparoscopy, endoscopy, etc.
\nThe petitioner has also stated that after 1997,
\nvarious efforts were made by the member-Associations to
\nget more benefits to ex-servicemen. On June 12, 1997,
\nAir Marshal D.S. Sabhikhi, Senior Vice President of Air
\nForce Association submitted a detailed representation to
\nthe Defence Ministry requesting to take action on war
\nfooting for setting up Veteran’s Hospitals, augmentation
\nof Special Medical Inspection Rooms (MIRs), Dental
\nCentres, etc., for ex-servicemen. Brig. Dal Singh (Retd.),
\nPresident of Indian Ex-services League also wrote a letter
\nto the Defence Secretary requesting him to intimate the
\nactions taken by the authorities on various judgments of
\nthis Court. Similar representation was made by Vice
\nAdmiral S.K. Chand (Retd.), President of Navy
\nFoundation, Delhi. Attention of the Government was
\ninvited by political leaders and reference was made to
\nletters of Shri B.K. Gadhvi, Member of Lok Sabha to the
\nDefence Minister as also by Shri Jaswant Singh, another
\nM.P. The petitioner has referred to letters by Air Chief
\nMarshal S.K. Kaul (Retd.) in 1997-98 and by Air Marshal
\nD.S. Sabhikhi, Senior Vice President of Air Force
\nAssociation.\n<\/p>\n
The grievance of the petitioner is that though
\nseveral attempts had been made by the Associations, the
\nGovernment of India had never taken the matter
\nseriously as regards the medical services to be provided
\nto ex-servicemen. Though they have a valuable right of
\nfull and free medicare, which is a fundamental right, no
\nconcrete and effective steps had been taken by the
\nrespondents which constrained them to approach this
\nCourt by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution.
\nAccording to them, keeping in view the services rendered
\nby ex-defence personnel and the diseases sustained by
\nthem, they are entitled to necessary medical facilities. It
\nwas also their case that free and full medical facilities is
\npart and parcel of their fundamental rights guaranteed
\nby Part III of the Constitution as also covered by
\nDirective Principles in Part IV of the Constitution. In
\nseveral cases, this Court has held that such facilities
\nmust be provided to Government employees, past and
\npresent. According to the petitioner, such facilities are
\nprovided to Government employees and also to ex-
\nservicemen. Refusal to extend similar medical benefits to
\nex-defence personnel is thus arbitrary, discriminatory,
\nunreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The petition came up for preliminary hearing before
\na two Judge Bench on May 10, 1999 and the following
\norder was passed:\n<\/p>\n
“Issue Rule.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance is placed upon paragraph 25 of the
\ndecision of a three Judge Bench in Consumer
\nEducation and Research Centre and Ors. v.
\nUnion of India and Ors.<\/a> (1995) 3 SCC 42.
\nSince we are, prima facie, disinclined to
\naccept the correctness of the broad
\nobservations in that paragraph, the matter
\nshall be placed before the Bench of five
\nlearned Judges.”\n<\/p>\n
From the above order, it is clear that the two Judge
\nBench had some doubt about the correctness of wider
\nobservations in Consumer Education & Research Centre.
\nThe matter was, therefore, ordered to be placed before a
\nBench of five Judges. By an order dated July 20, 2004,
\nhowever, a three Judge Bench, relying on a decision
\nrendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
\nPradip Chandra Parija & Ors. v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik
\n& Ors.,<\/a> (2002) 1 SCC 1 observed that initially the matter
\nwas required to be heard by a Bench of three Judges.
\nAccordingly, the matter was ordered to be set down for
\nhearing before a three-Judge Bench. On November 22,
\n2005, a three Judge Bench perused the earlier orders,
\nheard the learned counsel for the parties for some time
\nand the issue involved and was satisfied that the writ
\npetition was required to be heard by a Bench of five
\nJudges. Accordingly, an order was passed directing the
\nRegistry to place the papers before Hon’ble the Chief
\nJustice for necessary action. That is how, the matter is
\nplaced for hearing before us.\n<\/p>\n
A counter affidavit by Mr. V.K. Jain, Under
\nSecretary, Ministry of Defence on behalf of Union of India
\nwas filed on January 24, 2002, raising inter alia,
\npreliminary objection as to maintainability of writ
\npetition as also objections on merits. A technical
\nobjection was raised by the respondents that the petition
\nwas not maintainable as the petitioner-Associations were
\nnot registered associations and, therefore, had no locus
\nstandi.  On Merits, it was submitted that ex-servicemen
\nwere provided Assured In-patient and Out-patient
\nTreatment as specified in the Regulations of 1983 within
\nthe available resources of the State. According to the
\nUnion, full and free medical aid for ex-servicemen cannot
\nbe claimed as a matter of right. It has never been
\nclaimed for more than fifty years of independence. Ex-
\nservicemen and their dependents are entitled to medical
\ntreatment in Military Hospitals. They are also given
\nfinancial assistance from the Group Insurance Scheme
\nand from the Armed Forces Flag Day Fund for treatment
\noutside Military hospitals. On the recommendations of
\nFifth Pay Commission, the Government had sanctioned
\nfixed medical allowance of Rs.100 per month to those ex-
\nservicemen and their families who reside in the areas
\nwhere facilities of Armed Forces hospitals\/clinics are not
\navailable. Over and above those facilities, other facilities
\nwere also provided, such as Mobile Medical Teams,
\nMedical Vans, Army Group Insurance Medical Benefit
\nScheme, Army Dialysis Centres, etc. It was then stated
\nthat the Government had extended certain medical
\namenities to ex-servicemen and their dependents within
\nthe available sources. Ex-servicemen and their family
\nmembers are given free out-patient treatment in nearest
\nMilitary Hospitals and are also given medicines.
\nRegarding Military hospitals, it was stated by the
\ndeponent that such hospitals are essentially meant for
\ntreatment of in-service defence personnel for whom it is
\na service requirement to ensure defence preparedness.
\nEx-servicemen are provided in-patient treatment in
\nMilitary Hospitals, subject to the availability of beds
\nwithin the authorized strength and without detriment to
\nthe needs of in-service defence personnel. It was,
\nhowever, conceded that the scheme did not cover
\ntreatment for pulmonary tuberculosis, leprosy, mental
\ndiseases or malignant diseases.
\nAs to discrimination, it was stated that the case of
\nex-servicemen cannot be compared with retired Civilian
\nCentral Government employees inasmuch as medical
\nfacilities under Central Government Health Scheme
\n(‘CGHS’ for short) are contributory i.e., a retired Central
\nGovernment servant who is a member of CGHS before
\nretirement has option to continue to be covered by the
\nsaid scheme. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim
\nsimilar benefits since they are not similarly situated.
\nRegarding in-service defence personnel, it was stated
\nthat the case of the petitioners cannot be compared with
\nin-service defence personnel as they are different,
\ndistinct, independent and form different class. It was,
\ntherefore, submitted that the grievance of the petitioner
\nis not well founded and they are not entitled to the reliefs
\nclaimed.\n<\/p>\n
A rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner was
\nfiled to the affidavit in reply controverting the facts
\nstated and averments made in the counter affidavit,
\nreiterating the assertions in the petition. In addition, it
\nwas stated that on September 13, 1999, Assistant Chief
\nof Personnel (P&C) of the Indian Navy had informed the
\nthen President of the Confederation that the Committee
\nhad been constituted under the direction of the Defence
\nMinister to look into the problems of medicare of ex-
\nservicemen. Similar information was also communicated
\nby the Under Secretary of Ministry of Defence vide letter
\ndated September 20, 1999 and yet nothing was stated on
\nthat point by the Union of India in the counter affidavit
\nalready filed.\n<\/p>\n
On July 20, 2004, this Court granted I.As. of All
\nIndia Defence Services Advocates Association and All
\nIndia Ex-Services Welfare Association seeking
\nimpleadment to the limited extent of addressing the
\ncourt to raise such points not covered by the
\nsubmissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
\nIt was also stated at the Bar that during the
\npendency of the writ petition, the Government of India
\nhad introduced a scheme known as “Ex-Servicemen
\nContributory Health Scheme” (ECHS) partly taking care
\nof grievances raised by the petitioner and intervenors.
\nThe respondents sought time to place the scheme on
\nrecord within four weeks. Accordingly, by an additional
\naffidavit dated October 4, 2004, ECHS has been placed
\non record by the respondents. The scheme is a
\ncontributory scheme for ex-servicemen and extends
\ncertain benefits to ex-servicemen on payment of
\ncontribution.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
\nintervenors and for the respondent-authorities.
\nThe learned counsel for the petitioner and
\nintervenors submitted that considering the hard and
\narduous nature of work performed by defence personnel
\nand taking into account the exigencies of service, it was
\nobligatory on the respondents to provide free and full
\nmedical facilities to them even after retirement. It was
\nsubmitted that such facilities are provided to defence
\npersonnel who are in service. They are also extended to
\ncivilians, even after retirement. In such matters,
\nexpenses would be immaterial. But even if the said fact
\nis relevant and considered material, it is a negligible
\namount compared to the services rendered by them. The
\nimpugned action, therefore, is arbitrary, discriminatory,
\nunreasonable and violative of fundamental rights
\nconferred by the Constitution. It was also urged that
\nseveral Committees, Commissions and Expert Bodies
\nconsidered the plight of ex-servicemen. Various
\nsuggestions were made and recommendations were
\nforwarded to the respondents but no adequate steps
\nhave been taken by them. The doctrine of ‘legitimate
\nexpectation’ was also pressed in service contending that
\nmost of the defence personnel had to retire at a
\npremature age either because of injuries sustained or
\noccupational diseases suffered by them.  It is, therefore,
\nthe right of ex-servicemen to get adequate free and full
\nmedical treatment.  Apart from fundamental rights
\nguaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, it is the duty
\nof the respondents to implement Directive Principles of
\nState Policy under Part IV of the Constitution.
\nThe counsel submitted that serious and terminal
\ndiseases cannot be excluded from the category of
\nmedical services to be provided to ex-servicemen. It was
\nstated that in past, there were no sufficient number of
\nMilitary hospitals\/clinics. Due to inadequate
\ninfrastructure, paucity of staff, availability of sufficient
\nmeans and other considerations, it was not possible for
\nthe respondents to provide medical facilities for serious
\ndiseases but in 21st century, when Medical Science has
\nmuch developed and huge infrastructure is available,
\nthere is no earthly reason to deprive ex-servicemen from
\ngetting medical treatment for those diseases.
\nIt was finally submitted that no doubt, recently a
\nscheme has been framed under which medical facilities
\nhave been ensured to ex-servicemen. But they are
\nrequired to pay contribution since the scheme is
\n‘contributory health scheme’.  To that extent, therefore,
\nthe scheme is objectionable and is violative of
\nfundamental rights of ex-servicemen. It is also
\ninconsistent with and contrary to various decisions of
\nthis Court wherein it has been held that to get free
\nmedical service is a fundamental right of citizens. On all
\nthese grounds, it was submitted that the petition
\ndeserves to be allowed by issuing appropriate directions
\nto the respondents to provide full and free medical
\nfacilities to ex defence personnel and their family
\nmembers.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the Union of India, on the
\nother hand, submitted that the action of the Government
\ncannot be held arbitrary, unlawful or otherwise
\nunreasonable. He conceded that valuable services have
\nbeen rendered by retired army-men when they were in
\nservice. But submitted that the State after taking into
\naccount all relevant aspects, formulated a policy for
\nproviding medical facilities to its employees as also to ex-
\nemployees. According to the counsel, defence personnel
\nand civil personnel cannot be compared as they belong
\nto different class. Article 14, therefore, has no
\napplication. Likewise, defence personnel in-service and
\ndefence personnel out of service, i.e. who have retired,
\ncannot be placed in the same category and if different
\nstandards are fixed for providing medical facilities to
\ndefence personnel in service on one hand and to retired
\ndefence personnel on the other, it cannot be said that
\nthe State has acted arbitrarily or practised
\ndiscrimination between the two classes who are not
\nsimilar and do not stand on the same footing. It was
\nsubmitted by the respondents that free medical service
\nto all its employees in- service or out-of service is never
\nheld to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the
\nConstitution and even if there are some observations to
\nthat effect, they are either ‘obiter dicta’ or ‘passing
\nobservations’ and do not lay down correct law. Every
\nState has limited financial means and resources.  And
\nkeeping in view financial capacity and available means,
\nit has to undertake its obligations of providing social
\nservices including medical facilities to its employees in-
\nservice or retired. So far as ex-servicemen are concerned,
\nthe counsel submitted that recommendations and
\nsuggestions of various Committees were considered by
\nthe Union of India and more and more benefits had been
\nextended from time to time. Regarding medical facilities
\nin serious and terminal diseases, it was submitted that
\nin past, such facilities were either not available at
\nMilitary hospitals\/clinics or there were no sufficient
\nnumber of hospitals\/clinics and hence they could not be
\nprovided to ex-servicemen. The position was thereafter
\nsubstantially changed.  In several hospitals\/clinics now
\nsuch facilities are available. It was also stated that
\nfinancial assistance is being given to ex-servicemen in
\ncertain cases. In 2002, the Government has prepared
\nECHS for full medical services. True it is that the scheme
\nis contributory. But considering the amount of
\ncontribution which is ‘one time payment’ and is really
\nnegligible, it cannot be contended that the action is
\narbitrary, irrational or in the nature of deprivation of ex-
\nservicemen from getting necessary medical services. If
\nex-servicemen intend to take benefit of the scheme, they
\nmay exercise option, may become members and may
\navail benefits thereunder by paying contribution on the
\nbasis of the amount of pension received by them. In that
\ncase, they would not be entitled to financial assistance
\ngiven to them. If they are not willing to be members of
\nthe scheme, it is not necessary for them to pay the
\namount of contribution but they would not be entitled to
\nmedical benefits under the scheme. It was also stated
\nthat this is to a limited class of employees who have
\nretired prior to January 1, 1996 as thereafter, the
\nscheme has been made applicable and contribution has
\nbeen charged from all the employees. It was, therefore,
\nsubmitted that no case can be said to have been made
\nout by the petitioner so as to hold the action of the
\nrespondents unlawful or otherwise unreasonable and the
\npetition deserves to be dismissed.
\nWe have given anxious and thoughtful
\nconsideration to the rival contentions raised by the
\nparties. So far as the preliminary objection regarding
\nmaintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be
\nstated that the petitioner has asserted in the petition
\nthat it is a Confederation of five ex-servicemen
\nAssociations formed in furtherance of common cause.
\nThe aims and objects of the Confederation have also
\nbeen annexed as set out in the MoU (Annexure ‘P-1’). In
\nthe affidavit in reply filed by the Under Secretary working
\nwith the Ministry of Defence, it was stated that he is ‘not
\naware’ of the existence of the petitioner organization. He,
\nhowever, stated that the organization ‘does not seem’ to
\nbe registered body to represent the cause of ex-
\nservicemen. The rejoinder affidavit unequivocally states
\nthat the objection raised by the Union of India is
\nincorrect. The Confederation was registered under the
\nSocieties’ Registration Act, 1860. Likewise, all
\nAssociations which constitute the Confederation are
\nsimilarly registered individually. It is further stated that
\nAir Force Association and Indian Ex-Services League are
\neven recognized by the Ministry of Defence, Union of
\nIndia. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner-
\nConfederation is not registered and the petition filed is
\nnot maintainable. In view of the fact that some of the
\nAssociations have been recognized even by the Ministry
\nof Defence, the deponent ought not to have raised the
\nobjection regarding maintainability of the petition
\nwithout ascertaining full facts and particulars. We leave
\nthe matter there holding the petition maintainable.
\nWe are also satisfied that the contention of the
\nrespondent is even otherwise not tenable at law. A
\nsimilar point came up before a Constitution Bench of
\nthis Court in the well known decision in D.S. Nakara v.
\nUnion of India,<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 305. There also, one of the
\npetitioners was a Society registered under the Societies’
\nRegistration Act, 1860. It approached this Court for
\nventilating grievances of a large number of old and infirm
\nretirees who were individually unable to approach a
\ncourt of law for redressal of their grievances. This Court
\nheld locus standi of the Society ‘unquestionable’. In the
\npresent case, apart from the fact that a larger public
\nissue and cause is involved, even individually, all
\nAssociations are registered Associations of ex-
\nservicemen. The petitioner-Confederation representing
\nthose Associations which is also registered, can certainly
\napproach this Court by invoking the provisions of Part III
\nof the Constitution. We, therefore, reject the preliminary
\nobjection raised by the respondents and hold that the
\npetitioner-Confederation has locus standi to file the
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, however, maintainability of petition
\nand justiciability of issues raised therein are two
\ndifferent, distinct and independent matters and one
\ncannot be mixed or inter-linked with the other.\n<\/p>\n
It was strenuously contended that when in-service
\ndefence personnel have been provided full and free
\nmedical services, refusal to extend similar facilities and
\nbenefits to ex-servicemen would result in discriminatory
\ntreatment, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It
\nwas also urged that members of civil services have been
\nprovided all medical facilities, irrespective of the fact
\nwhether they are in service or have retired. In the
\nsubmission of the counsel, if in-service defence
\npersonnel have been provided full and free medical
\nservices, the same benefit should be extended to retired
\ndefence personnel. Likewise, when employees from civil
\nservices have right to get full and free medical facilities,
\nthe same yardstick must be applied to retired defence
\npersonnel as well. Retired civil servants and retired
\ndefence personnel stand on one and the same footing.
\nGranting relief in favour of one class and denying same
\nor similar relief in favour of another class would result in
\nunequal treatments to equals and would infringe Article
\n14 of the Constitution. The action of the respondents,
\ntherefore, deserves interference by this Court.
\nWe are unable to uphold the argument advanced
\nby the petitioners for more than one reason. It is no
\ndoubt true, that Article 14 guarantees equality before the
\nlaw and confers equal protection of laws. It clearly
\nprohibits the State from denying persons or class of
\npersons equal treatment provided they are equals and
\nare similarly situated. In our opinion, however, the basis
\non which the argument proceeds is fallacious and ill-
\nfounded. It is well established that Article 14 seeks to
\nprevent or prohibit a person or class of persons from
\nbeing singled out from others situated similarly. It thus
\nprohibits discrimination or class legislation. It, however,
\ndoes not prohibit classification if otherwise it is legal,
\nvalid and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
Before more than five decades, a Constitution
\nBench of this Court was called upon to consider a
\nsimilar contention in the well known decision in State of
\nWest Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar & Another,<\/a> (1952 SCR
\n284 : AIR 1952 SC 75). In that case, validity of certain
\nprovisions of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950
\nwas challenged on the ground that they were
\ndiscriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
\nConstitution. Dealing with the contention, S.R. Das, J.
\n(as His Lordship then was), made the following pertinent
\nobservations which were cited with approval in several
\ncases;\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is now well established that while
\narticle 14 is designed to prevent a person or
\nclass of persons from being singled out from
\nothers similarly situated for the purpose of
\nbeing specially subjected to discriminating and
\nhostile legislation, it does not insist on an
\n“abstract symmetry” in the sense that every
\npiece of legislation must have universal
\napplication. All persons are not, by nature,
\nattainment or circumstances, equal and the
\nvarying needs of different classes of persons
\noften require separate treatment and, therefore,
\nthe protecting clause has been construed as a
\nguarantee against discrimination amongst
\nequals only and not as taking away from the
\nState the power to classify persons for the
\npurpose of legislation. This classification may
\nbe on different bases. It may be geographical or
\naccording to objects or occupations or the like
\nMere classification, however, is not enough to
\nget over the inhibition of the Article. The
\nclassification must not be arbitrary but must
\nbe rational, that is to say, it must not only be
\nbased on some qualities or characteristics
\nwhich are to be found in all the persons
\ngrouped together and not in others who are left
\nout but those qualities or characteristics must
\nhave a reasonable relation to the object of the
\nlegislation. In order to pass the test, two
\nconditions must be fulfilled, namely, that the
\nclassification must be founded on an
\nintelligible differentia which distinguishes those
\nthat are grouped together from others and that
\nthat differentia must have a rational relation to
\nthe object sought to be achieved by the Act.
\nThe differentia which is the basis of the
\nclassification and the object of the Act are
\ndistinct things and what is necessary is that
\nthere must be a nexus between them. In short,
\nwhile the Article forbids class legislation in the
\nsense of making improper discrimination by
\nconferring privileges or imposing liabilities upon
\npersons arbitrarily selected out of a large
\nnumber of other persons similarly situated in
\nrelation to the privileges sought to be conferred
\nor the liability proposed to be imposed, it does
\nnot forbid classification for the purpose of
\nlegislation, provided such classification is not
\narbitrary in the sense I have just explained.”
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Again, in Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar,<\/a>
\n[(1955) 1 SCR 1045 : AIR 1955 SC 191], after
\nconsidering earlier decisions, this Court stated;
\n“It is now well-established that while article
\n14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
\nreasonable classification for the purposes of
\nlegislation. In order, however, to pass the test
\nof permissible classification two conditions
\nmust be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the
\nclassification must be founded on an
\nintelligible differential which distinguishes
\npersons or things that are grouped together
\nfrom others left out of the group and (ii) that
\nthat differentia must have a rational relation
\nto the object sought to be achieved by the
\nstatute in question. The classification may be
\nfounded on different bases; namely,
\ngeographical, or according to objects or
\noccupations or the like. What is necessary is
\nthat there must be a nexus between the basis
\nof classification and the object of the Act under
\nconsideration.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The principle laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar and
\nBudhan Choudhry has been consistently followed and
\nreiterated by this Court in several subsequent cases.
\n[See Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> 1956 SCR
\n267 : AIR 1956 SC 479; Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice
\nTendolkar,<\/a>  1959 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538; V.C.
\nShukla v. State (Delhi Administration)<\/a>; 1980 Supp. SCC
\n249 : AIR 1980 SC 1382; Special Courts Bill, Re, (1979) 1
\nSCC 380 : AIR 1979 SC 478 : (1979) 2 SCR 476; R.K.
\nGarg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 1981 SC
\n2138; State of A.P. & Ors. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi & Ors.,<\/a>
\n(2001) 7 SCC 708 : AIR 2001 SC 3616; M.P. Rural
\nAgriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of M.P.
\n& Anr.,<\/a> (2004) 4 SCC 646 : AIR 2004 SC 2020].
\nIn our judgment, therefore, it is clear that every
\nclassification to be legal, valid and permissible, must
\nfulfill the twin-test, namely;\n<\/p>\n
(i)  the classification must be founded on an
\nintelligible differentia which must
\ndistinguish persons or things that are
\ngrouped together from others leaving out
\nor left out; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) such a differentia must have rational
\nnexus to the object sought to be achieved
\nby the statute or legislation in question.
\nIn our considered opinion, classification between
\nin-service employees and retirees is legal, valid and
\nreasonable classification and if certain benefits are
\nprovided to in-service employees and those benefits have
\nnot been extended to retired employees, it cannot be
\nsuccessfully contended that there is discrimination
\nwhich is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. To us, two
\ncategories of employees are different. They form different
\nclasses and cannot be said to be similarly situated.
\nThere is, therefore, no violation of Article 14 if they are
\ntreated differently.\n<\/p>\n
Likewise, a classification between defence
\npersonnel and other than defence personnel is also
\nreasonable and valid classification.  Moreover, it is
\nclarified by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that
\nfor medical facilities provided to retired civil servants,
\nthere is also a scheme known as the Central Government
\nHealth Scheme (CGHS), which is again contributory.
\nRetired Central Government Servants who are members
\nof the scheme are covered by the said scheme and they
\nare provided medical services on payment of specified
\namount under the scheme. We, therefore, see no
\nsubstance in the argument of the petitioners that the
\nimpugned action in not providing full and free medical
\nfacilities to retired defence personnel infringes Article 14
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
We are also not impressed by the argument that all
\nmedical benefits and facilities must be provided to ex-
\nservicemen under the doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’.
\nThe doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ is a ‘latest recruit’
\nto a long list of concepts fashioned by Courts for review
\nof administrative actions. No doubt, the doctrine has an
\nimportant place in the development of Administrative
\nLaw and particularly law relating to ‘judicial review’.
\nUnder the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable
\nor legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way
\nby an administrative authority even though he has no
\nright in law to receive the benefit. In such situation, if a
\ndecision is taken by an administrative authority
\nadversely affecting his interests, he may have justifiable
\ngrievance in the light of the fact of continuous receipt of
\nthe benefit, legitimate expectation to receive the benefit
\nor privilege which he has enjoyed all throughout. Such
\nexpectation may arise either from the express promise or
\nfrom consistent practice which the applicant may
\nreasonably expect to continue.\n<\/p>\n
The expression ‘legitimate expectation’ appears to
\nhave been originated by Lord Denning, M.R. in the
\nleading decision of Schmidt v. Secretary of State, [(1969)
\n1 All ER 904 : (1969) 2 WLR 337 : (1969) 2 Ch D 149]. In
\nAttorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu, [(1983) 2
\nAll ER 346 : (1983) 2 AC 629], Lord Fraser referring to
\nSchmidt stated;\n<\/p>\n
“The expectations may be based on some
\nstatement or undertaking by, or on behalf of,
\nthe public authority which has the duty of
\nmaking the decision, if the authority has,
\nthrough its officers, acted in a way that would
\nmake it unfair or inconsistent with good
\nadministration for him to be denied such an
\ninquiry.\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist
\nan administrative authority to act judicially but may still
\ninsist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the
\nprinciple that good administration demands observance
\nof reasonableness and where it has adopted a particular
\npractice for a long time even in absence of a provision of
\nlaw, it should adhere to such practice without depriving
\nits citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised.
\nWe do not wish to burden our judgment with
\nseveral English, American and domestic decisions, since
\nthe proposition of law has not been disputed by the other
\nside. In our opinion, however, in the instant case, the
\ndoctrine of legitimate expectation has no application. It
\nis not even the case of the petitioners that certain
\nmedical facilities which were enjoyed by them in the past
\nhave been withdrawn or revoked. On the contrary, they
\nhave admitted that after independence, because of
\nseveral representations made by them and various
\nefforts, suggestions and recommendations by different
\nCommittees and Commissions, more and more medical
\nfacilities were provided but they were not enough. It was
\nalso their case that in the last few years, situation
\nregarding infrastructure and staff has been improved.
\nThey have, therefore, prayed that medical facilities which
\nwere not provided in past may also be provided now to
\nretired defence personnel. Similarly, medical facilities
\nshould also be extended for serious and terminal
\ndiseases.  The doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the
\nfact situation, therefore, cannot be invoked by the
\npetitioner in the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
We are equally unimpressed by the submission of
\nthe learned counsel to issue directions or guidelines to
\n‘fill in gaps’ in the exercise of plenary powers.
\nUndoubtedly, in absence of legislative provisions or
\nadministrative instructions governing the field, this court
\nmay, in appropriate cases, issue necessary directions as
\nhas been done in several cases. [See Delhi Judicial
\nService Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 106
\n: AIR 1991 SC 2106 : (1991) 3 SCR 936; D.K. Basu v.
\nState of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 : AIR 1997 SC
\n610; Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 :
\nAIR 1997 SC 3011]. In the instant case, however, a
\nscheme providing medical facilities to ex-servicemen has
\nbeen framed. It has been decided by the Central
\nGovernment to extend medical facilities to retired
\ndefence personnel on the basis of ‘one time contribution’
\nwhich is legal, proper and reasonable. In the
\ncircumstances, the ratio laid down by the Supreme
\nCourt in the above cases does not apply and no
\ndirections need be issued to the respondents.
\nAt the same time, however, so far as the services
\nprovided by the defence personnel is concerned, there
\ncan be no two opinions that they have rendered
\nextremely useful and indispensable services which can
\nneither be ignored nor under-estimated. The petitioners
\nhave rightly stated that they have served in the Army, Air
\nForce and Navy of the Union of India during cream
\nperiod of youth putting their lives to high risk and
\nimprobabilities. As a mark of respect and gratitude,
\ntherefore, they must be provided medical services after
\nretirement. It is indeed true that men and women in
\nuniform are the pride of the nation and protectors of the
\ncountry. It is because of their eternal vigil that ordinary
\ncitizens are able to sleep peacefully every night, for it is
\nthese men and women guarding the frontiers of our
\nnation that makes our interiors safe. They, therefore, are
\nentitled to privileged treatment.
\nIt would be appropriate to quote here an epitaph
\nfrom the Kohima War Cemetry which conveys eloquently
\nwhat our Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen are cheerfully
\nwilling to sacrifice their lives;
\n“When you go home,
\n  Tell them for us;\n<\/p>\n
  For your to-morrow,
\n  We gave our to-day.”\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner has made grievance that during war
\nand serious situations, defence personnel are
\nremembered but as soon as grave situation is over, they
\nare forgotten and ignored. We are reminded what Francis
\nQuarrels said;\n<\/p>\n
 “Our Gods and Soliders we alike adore,
\n  At the time of danger, not before;
\n  After deliverance both are alike requited,
\n  Our Gods forgotten and our Soldiers slighted”.\n<\/p>\n
Before more than two decades when the
\nrespondents appointed a High Level Committee under
\nthe Chairmanship of Shri K.P. Singh Deo, Minister of
\nState, Ministry of Defence to consider problems of ex-
\nservicemen, it highlighted the difficulties experienced by
\nex-servicemen in the light of hard and strenuous work
\nundertaken by them and exigencies of service in which
\nthey had to discharge their duties. The Committee, while
\nsubmitting the report, observed in the Foreword
\nOur Armed Forces have won world wide
\nrenown for their valour, dedication and
\ndevotion. The achievements of the Armed
\nForces in varying roles since Independence
\nare a matter of pride for all of us in the
\nCountry and that of envy of other Nations.
\nMen from all castes, creeds, religions and
\nfrom all parts of India join the Armed Forces
\nand their integration as a secular
\nhomogeneous and dedicated team is
\nremarkably total.\n<\/p>\n
The Armed Forces personnel have sterling
\nqualities of head and heart, courage,
\ndiscipline, loyalty and implicit obedience to
\norders. They are the guardians of the safety
\nand honour of the Country and are ever
\nprepared to sacrifice their lives to preserve the
\nfreedom and sovereignty of the Country. In
\naddition to their preparedness for war, during
\npeace time, our Armed Forces have always
\nrisen to the occasion to assist the
\nAdministration during natural calamities and
\ninternal unrest. The sacrifices made by the
\npersonnel of the Armed Forces from 15th
\nAugust, 1947 to date have been so
\ninnumerable that they can best be described
\nby the following quotation of Sir Winston
\nChurchill who had on 20th August, 1940 said:\n<\/p>\n
“Never in the field of human conflict was
\n so much owed by so many to so few”\n<\/p>\n
The Committee was conscious of the ground reality
\nthat the personnel of Armed Forces are the only
\nGovernment employees who retire at a relatively younger
\nage to keep a youthful profile due to the arduous nature
\nof their duties in hazardous and inhospitable terrain. It
\nstated that, almost all ex-servicemen, whose retirement
\nage depending on rank, vary from 35 to 54 years, require
\nhelp and assistance for resettlement, rehabilitation and
\nadjustment in the civil stream. They require a second
\ncareer as they are comparatively young and active and
\ntheir responsibilities and obligations are at the peak
\nwhen they are compulsorily retired. Having given the
\nbest years of their lives for the safety, honour and
\nintegrity of the country, it becomes a national obligation
\nto get them resettled and rehabilitated. The Committee
\nnoted that the problems of ex-servicemen had, for a long
\ntime, been engaging the attention of both the Houses of
\nParliament as well as the Government and a cause of
\nconcern to Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi who had a
\nspecial love and affection for the Armed Forces. Keeping
\nin view the magnitude of the problem, the High Level
\nCommittee had been set up for the first time after
\nindependence to go into various problems of ex-
\nservicemen. The Committee was also mindful that
\ndefence and national development were, to a great
\nextent, interdependent. The Committee quoted Pandit
\nJawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India, who,
\nwhile inaugurating the National Defence College at Delhi
\nas early as in 1960, stated;\n<\/p>\n
“Defence itself is not an isolated matter now. It
\nis intimately connected with the economic
\naspect, industrial aspect and many other
\naspects in the country India today has
\nbecome positively and actively defence
\nconscious, more than at any time since
\nindependence. Our desire is to continue to live
\npeacefully and co-operatively with all our
\nneighbours. Nevertheless, no defence
\napparatus can exist in a purely idealistic way.
\nIt has to be very realistic and remain prepared
\nfor any emergency”.\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The Committee considered several problems and
\nprepared a detailed report. Regarding medical facilities, it
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
“Medical Facilities<\/p>\n
12.9\t\tPrior to the issue of Government of
\nIndia, Ministry of Defence letter No.
\n16307\/DGCAFMS\/DG3(A)\/417S\/D(AG-1)
\ndated 14th October, 1966, ex-servicemen and
\ntheir families were not entitled to receive any
\ntreatment from Service hospitals except to a
\nvery limited extent as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) Free medical treatment for specific
\ndisabilities in respect of ex-servicemen in
\nreceipt of disability pension.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Other Armed Forces pensioners could be
\nadmitted to Service hospitals only if
\naccommodation was available and admission
\nwas sanctioned by the Officer Commanding
\nStation\/Administrative Authority. Specified
\nhospital stoppages were to be paid. No out-
\npatient treatment was available to such
\npensioners.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Families of ex-servicemen were not entitled
\nto any treatmentout-door or indoor from
\nService hospitals.\n<\/p>\n
12.10\tThe Government letter cited in para
\n12.9 above was instrumental in making very
\nliberal concessions towards the treatment of
\nex-servicemen and their families from Service
\nsources. Under the provisions, ex-service
\npensioners and their families and the families
\nof deceased service personnel drawing pension
\nof some kind were entitled to free out-patient
\ntreatment including supply of free medicines
\nfrom the nearest military hospital. Sanction
\nwas also accorded for these personnel for
\nproviding in-patient treatment in Service
\nhospitals subject to the following conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) That the disease is not incurable.\n<\/p>\n
(b) That the hospital accommodation could be
\nmade available from within the authorized
\nnumber of beds and without detriment to the
\nneeds of serving personnel.\n<\/p>\n
(c) That the treatment will be limited to the
\nfacilities locally available.\n<\/p>\n
(d) No conveyance will be provided for journeys
\nfrom the residence to the hospital and back;
\nand<\/p>\n
(e) No special nursing would be admissible.\n<\/p>\n
It is specifically laid down in this Government
\nletter that the above concessions will not
\ninclude treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis,
\nleprosy, mental diseases, malignant diseases or
\nany other disease for which treatment is not
\nordinarily available from the local military
\nsources.\n<\/p>\n
12.11 Liberalisation Proposals : due to the
\nincreased awareness and phenomenal increase
\nin the number of ex-servicemen at the rate of
\n60,000 per annum, more and more ex-
\nservicemen are now coming to Service hospitals
\nfor treatment. To meet the requirement of
\ngiving adequate treatment to the ex-servicemen
\nreporting at the Service hospitals, the following
\nadditional facilities need to be provided:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) Sanction of 1155 beds exclusively for the ex-
\nservicemen pensioners and entitled
\ndependents.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  To treat ex-servicemen as out-patients and
\nin-patients, additional staff would also be
\nrequired as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\tOfficers\t\t\t\t33\n\t(ii)\tNursing Officers\t\t74\n\t(iii)\tOther Ranks\t\t      312\n\t(iv)\tCivilians\t\t\t      211\n\n<\/pre>\n
12.12\tCivil Hospitals : Ex-servicemen are
\nliving in villages, towns and cities throughout
\nthe country. The 31 military hospitals are
\nsituated in military stations. The primary aim
\nof these hospitals is to provide medical cover to
\nthe serving personnel. On account of their
\nlocation, only those ex-servicemen and entitled
\ndependents within close proximity to these
\nstations are likely to avail of the facilities in
\nthese military stations. In the case of most
\nother ex-servicemen they have to perforce
\ndepend upon the civil hospitals in the districts.
\nHence, States\/Union Territories should provide
\nmedical assistance to the ex-servicemen in
\ntheir civil hospitals free of charge, for example
\nas provided in Karnataka. In Chapter X, certain
\nrecommendations have been made for
\nprovision of funds from the Seventh Plan
\nexpenditure for the construction of wards for
\nex-servicemen in hospitals. This should also be
\ndone in civil hospitals particularly in States
\nwhere there are a large number of ex-
\nservicemen.”\n<\/p>\n
The Committee then made certain
\nrecommendations, inter alia, observing that the existing
\nfacilities in the Military hospitals should be enhanced for
\nex-servicemen and their entitled dependents in a phased
\nmanner in the next few years.\n<\/p>\n
As already noted earlier, in 1983, Regulations for
\nthe medical services of the Armed Forces were framed
\nsuperseding the Regulations for the medical services of
\nthe Armed Forces, 1962. Regulation 296 providing
\n“Entitlement to medial attendance” is relevant and the
\nmaterial part thereof reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
296. The classes noted below are entitled to medical
\nattendance as defined in paras 284, 285 and 286 to the extent
\nshown against each:
\nClasses
\nMedical attendance
\nAdmissible
\nRemarks\n<\/p>\n
(a)\n<\/p>\n
(b)\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\nA.\n<\/p>\n
B.\n<\/p>\n
C.\n<\/p>\n
D.\n<\/p>\n
E.\n<\/p>\n
F.\n<\/p>\n
(i)
\nEx-service
\npersonnel in receipt
\nof a disability
\npension and Ex-\n<\/p>\n
servicemen of the
\nIndian State Forces
\nin receipt of a
\ndisability pension
\nfrom the Defence
\nServices Estimates
\nfor a disability
\naccepted as attribu-\n<\/p>\n
table to or aggra-\n<\/p>\n
vated by service
\nwith the Indian
\nArmed Forces.\n<\/p>\n
As out-patient or in
\na hospital.\n<\/p>\n
(a) Treatment is
\nauthorized only for
\nthe disabilities for
\nwhich pension has
\nbeen granted
\nexcluding cases of
\nPulmonary Tuber-\n<\/p>\n
culosis, Leprosy
\nand mental
\ndiseases and
\npatients requiring
\nany special
\ntreatment not
\nordinarily available
\nfrom service
\nsources, such as
\nradiotherapy.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Admission may
\nbe authorized for
\nthe purpose of
\nobservation to
\nenable the medical
\nauthorities to
\narrive at a correct
\nassessment of the
\ndegree of
\ndisability.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\nPersonnel of F(i)
\nabove, who have
\nbeen invalidated out
\nof service on
\naccount of a dis-\n<\/p>\n
ability accepted as
\nattributable to\/
\naggravated by
\nmilitary service but
\nwho are not in
\nreceipt of a
\ndisability pension
\nfor the reason that
\nthe disability is less
\nthan 20% and
\nindividuals whose
\ncase attributability
\nhas been conceded
\nby the Medical
\nBoard but a final
\ndecision in the
\nmatter ha snot been
\nreached.\n<\/p>\n
As out-patient or in
\na hospital, if
\naccommodation is
\navailable.\n<\/p>\n
(a) As in F(i) above.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Treatment will
\nbe discontinued
\nimmediately in
\nrespect of cases
\nunder conside-\n<\/p>\n
ration if the final
\ndecision is against
\nthe findings of the
\nMedical Board.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)
\nEx-service
\npersonnel invalided
\nout of service on
\naccount of pulmo-\n<\/p>\n
nary tuberculosis
\nwhich has been
\naccepted as attribu-\n<\/p>\n
table to\/aggravated
\nby service and for
\nwhich disability
\npension has been
\ngranted.\n<\/p>\n
(i) Domiciliary
\ntreatment as out
\npatient.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) May be admitted
\nin Military Hospital
\n(Cardio Thoracic
\nCentre), Pune, on
\nthe recommen-\n<\/p>\n
dation of OC of an
\narmed forces
\nhospital, if a bed
\nout of the ten T.B.\n<\/p>\n
beds reserved for
\nthis category of
\npersonnel is
\navailable.\n<\/p>\n
On relapse of the
\ndisease.\n<\/p>\n
This concession is
\nnot an entitlement
\nfor indoor hospital
\ntreatment for T.B.\n<\/p>\n
from military
\nsources for ex-\n<\/p>\n
servicemen.\n<\/p>\n
G.\n<\/p>\n
H.\n<\/p>\n
I.\n<\/p>\n
J.\n<\/p>\n
K.\n<\/p>\n
L.\n<\/p>\n
M.\n<\/p>\n
N.\n<\/p>\n
     O.\n<\/p>\n
Ex-Service pensioners
\nand their families of
\ndeceased service
\npersonnel drawing
\npension of some kind\n<\/p>\n
(i) Free out patient
\ntreatment in the
\nnearest Armed
\nForces Hospital
\nincluding the supply
\nof medicine
\nnecessary for their
\ntreatment.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) In-patient
\ntreatment in Armed
\nForces Hospital
\nsubject to the
\nfollowing conditions:\n<\/p>\n
a) That the disease is
\nnot incurable.\n<\/p>\n
b) The hospital
\naccommodation
\ncould be made
\navailable within the
\nauthorized number
\nof beds and without
\ndetriment to the
\nneeds of service
\npersonnel.\n<\/p>\n
c) That the treatment
\nwill be limited to the
\nfacilities available
\nlocally.\n<\/p>\n
d) No conveyance will
\nbe provided for
\njourneys from the
\nresidence to the
\nhospital and back.\n<\/p>\n
e) No special nursing
\nwould be admissible.\n<\/p>\n
f) for in patient
\ntreatment, hospital
\nstoppages will be as
\npara 16 of Appendix\n<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
The scope of the
\nabove concessions
\nwill not include
\ntreatment for
\npulmonary tuber-\n<\/p>\n
culosis, leprosy,
\nmental disease,
\nmalignant disease
\nor any other
\ndisease for which
\ntreatment is not
\nordinarily available
\nfrom local military
\nsources.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) These conce-\n<\/p>\n
ssions will not be
\nadmissible to the
\nservice pensioners
\nwho are re-\n<\/p>\n
employed in
\nGovernment\/Semi-\n<\/p>\n
Government
\ndepartments or
\nother public or
\nprivate Sector
\nundertaking which
\nprovides medical
\nfacilities to their
\nemployees.\n<\/p>\n
iii) for this purpose
\nfamily includes
\nwife and un-\n<\/p>\n
married children \/
\nstep children \/
\nadopted children
\nunder 18 years of
\nage are dependent
\non the pensioners.\n<\/p>\n
Note : Retired officers of the Armed Forces including
\nM.N.S. officers and retired JCOs, WOs, OR and NcsE or
\nequivalents in the Navy and Air Force in receipt of
\nservice pension \tmay be treated in a hospital if
\naccommodation is available and admission is
\nsanctioned by the O.C. Station\/administrative
\nauthority. They are not entitled to special nursing in
\nhospital.\n<\/p>\n
In the affidavit in reply filed by the Union of India,
\nit was stated that under the Group Insurance Scheme
\nand from the Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, medical
\ntreatment has been provided to ex-servicemen. On the
\nrecommendation of Fifth Pay Commission, the
\nGovernment had sanctioned a fixed medical allowance of
\nRs.100 per month to those ex-servicemen and their
\nfamilies who reside in the area where Armed Forces
\nhospitals\/clinics are not available. Other facilities were
\nalso extended to them. It was stated that in respect of
\nserious diseases i.e. diseases affecting heart
\nangiography, open heart surgery, valve replacement,
\npacemaker implant, bypass surgery and repeat
\nangioplasty, cancer, etc. facilities are now available.
\nSubstantial financial assistance is provided to ex-
\nservicemen and their dependents for treatment in several
\nhospitals for bypass surgery (including preliminary tests
\nlike angiography, angioplasty, angiography),
\nkidney\/renal transplantation, cancer\/spastic paraplegic
\ntreatment, coronary artery surgery, open heart surgery,
\nvalve replacement and pacemaker implant.
\nWe have been taken through the contributory
\nscheme of 2002. It substantially covers extensive medical
\nfacilities to be provided to ex-servicemen. A
\ncommunication dated December 30, 2002 by
\nGovernment of India, Ministry of Defence to the Chief of
\nArmy Staff, Navy Staff and Air Staff states that
\nGovernment has sanctioned Ex-Servicemen Contributory
\nHealth Scheme (ECHS).\n<\/p>\n
The communication inter alia states as under:
\n“(a) ECHS would be a contributory scheme. On
\nretirement, every Service personnel will
\ncompulsorily become a member of ECHS by
\ncontributing his\/her share and the Scheme
\nwould be applicable for life time. Similarly ex-
\nservicemen who have already retired can
\nbecome members by making a one time
\ncontribution. There would be no restriction on
\nage or medical condition. The contribution will
\nbe according to the rates prescribed for CGHS
\npensioners as per Appendix-A attached.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Retired personnel joining the scheme will
\nforfeit the medical allowance of Rs.100\/-
\npresently admissible to them and those who do
\nnot join the scheme would continue getting
\nmedical allowance as hithertofore. Such
\npersons would not be entitled to any medical
\nfacility from Armed Forces Clinics\/Hospitals or
\nPolyclinics set up under the scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
Para 2 (c) of the said letter states that the scheme
\nwould cater for medicare to the ex-servicemen by
\nestablishing new Polyclinics and Augmented Armed
\nForces Clinics at 227 stations spread across the country,
\nthe details of which have been given in the letter. It also
\nprovides for reimbursement of cost of medicines\/
\ndrugs\/consumables and for financial outlay. It states
\nthat the service head quarters would ensure that
\nallocations made for revenue expenditure and
\nreimbursement is fully utilized on yearly basis. It then
\nprescribes rates of contribution in Appendix-A which are
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
RATES OF CONTRIBUTION\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tPension upto Rs.3000\tRs.\t  1800\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tPension between Rs.3001-6000\tRs.\t  4800\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tPension between Rs.6001-10000\tRs.\t  8400\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tPension between Rs.10001-15000\tRs.\t12000\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tPension of Rs.15000 and above\tRs.\t18000<\/p>\n
From the above discussion as well as the relevant
\nprovisions of the scheme, we are satisfied that necessary
\nsteps have been taken by the respondents. Under the
\nscheme, now in vogue, all ex-servicemen are entitled to
\nmedical treatment provided they become members of the
\nsaid scheme and pay requisite contribution. It is also not
\nin dispute that this would apply only to those defence
\npersonnel who retired prior to 1st January, 1996 since
\nofficials who have retired after that date or are still in
\nservice are governed by the scheme and are paying
\nrequisite amount of contribution.
\nThe larger question raised by various associations
\nis that to get free and full medical aid is their
\nfundamental right and is corresponding duty of the
\nGovernment. The respondents, hence can neither deny
\nthat right nor can ask ex-servicemen to pay contribution
\namount for getting medical services.
\nTo buttress the contention, the learned counsel
\ninvited our attention to several decisions of this court. It
\nis not necessary to deal with all those cases. We may,
\nhowever, consider some of them which are relevant.
\nStrong reliance was placed on a decision of three
\nJudge Bench in Consumer Education & Research Centre.
\nIn that case, the Court dealt with the problem of
\noccupational health hazards and diseases sustained by
\nthe workmen employed in asbestos industries. The Court
\nobserved that the dangers and diseases attributable to
\npersonnel working in asbestos industries were very
\nserious apart from cancer and respiratory disorders. It
\nwas held that right to health and medical aid of workers
\nduring service and thereafter, is a fundamental right of
\nworkers. According to this Court, it can issue directions
\nin an appropriate case to the State or its
\ninstrumentalities or even private employers to make the
\nright to life meaningful and to pay compensation to
\naffected workmen. It also held that the defence of
\n‘sovereign immunity’ would not be available to the State
\nor its instrumentalities where fundamental rights are
\nsought to be enforced. Relying on several previous
\njudgments, this Court held that right to life would mean
\nmeaningful and real right to life. It would include right to
\nlivelihood, better standard of living in hygienic conditions
\nat the work place and leisure.\n<\/p>\n
Speaking for the Court, K. Ramaswamy, J.
\nobserved in para 25;\n<\/p>\n
“Therefore, we hold that right to health,
\nmedical aid to protect the health and vigour of
\na worker while in service or post retirement is
\na fundamental right under Article 21, read
\nwith Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related
\nto Articles and fundamental human rights to
\nmake the life of the workman meaningful and
\npurposeful with dignity of person.”
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Reliance was also placed on CESC Ltd. v. Subhash
\nChandra Bose, [1992) 1 SCC 441 : AIR 1992 SC 573],
\nwherein His Lordship (K. Ramaswamy, J.) held that right
\nto health of a worker is covered by Article 21 of the
\nConstitution. It was also indicated that health does not
\nmean mere absence of sickness but would mean
\ncomplete physical, mental and social well-being.
\n“Facilities of health and medical care generate devotion
\nand dedication to give the workers’ best, physically as
\nwell as mentally, in productivity. It enables the worker to
\nenjoy the fruit of his labour, to keep him physically fit
\nand mentally alert for leading a successful economic,
\nsocial and cultural life. The medical facilities are,
\ntherefore, part of social security and like gift-edged
\nsecurity, it would yield immediate return in the
\nincreased production or at any rate reduce absenteeism
\non the ground of sickness.”\n<\/p>\n
Reference was made to Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
\nUnion of India,<\/a> [(1984) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 1984 SC 802]
\nwherein Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was)
\nreferring to Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union
\nTerritory of Delhi,<\/a> [(1981) 1 SCC 608 : AIR 1981 SC 746]
\nstated;\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is the fundamental right of every one
\nin this country, assured under the
\ninterpretation given to Article 21 by this Court
\nin Francis Mullen’s case, to live with human
\ndignity, free from exploitation. This right to
\nlive with human dignity enshrined in Article
\n21 derives its life breath from the Directive
\nPrinciples of State Policy and particularly
\nClauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41
\nand 42 and at the least, therefore, it must
\ninclude protection of the health and strength
\nof workers men and women, and of the tender
\nage of children against abuse, opportunities
\nand facilities for children to develop in a
\nhealthy manner and in conditions of freedom
\nand dignity, educational facilities, just and
\nhumane conditions of work and maternity
\nrelief. These are the minimum requirements
\nwhich must exist in order to enable a person
\nto live with human dignity and no State
\nneither the Central Government nor any State
\nGovernment-has the right to take any action
\nwhich will deprive a person of the enjoyment
\nof these basic essentials. Since the Directive
\nPrinciples of State Policy contained in Clauses\n<\/p>\n
(e) and (f) of Article 39, Article 41 and 42 are
\nnot enforceable in a court of law, it may not
\nbe possible to compel the State through the
\njudicial process to make provision by
\nstatutory enactment or executive fiat for
\nensuring these basic essentials which go to
\nmake up a life of human dignity but where
\nlegislation is already enacted by the State
\nproviding these basic requirements to the
\nworkmen and thus investing their right to live
\nwith basic human dignity, with concrete
\nreality and content, the State can certainly be
\nobligated to ensure observance of such
\nlegislation for inaction on the part of the State
\nin securing implementation of such legislation
\nwould amount to denial of the right to live
\nwith human dignity enshrined in Article 21,
\nmore so in the context of Article 256 which
\nprovides that the executive power of every
\nState shall be so exercised as to ensure
\ncompliance with the laws made by Parliament
\nand any existing laws which apply in that
\nState.”\n<\/p>\n
The counsel also relied upon Paschim Banga Khet
\nMazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal,<\/a> [(1996) 4 SCC
\n37 : AIR 1996 SC 2426]. That case related to failure on
\nthe part of Government hospitals to provide timely
\nemergency medical treatment to persons in serious
\nconditions. Relying on Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar,<\/a> [(1981)
\n1 SCC 627], this Corut said;\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is no doubt true that financial
\nresources are needed for providing these
\nfacilities. But at the same time it cannot be
\nignored that it is the Constitutional obligation
\nof the State to provide adequate medical
\nservices to the people. Whatever is necessary
\nfor this purpose has to be done. In the context
\nof the constitutional obligation to provide free
\nlegal aid to a poor accused, this Court has
\nheld that the State cannot avoid its
\nconstitutional obligation in that regard on
\naccount of financial constraints. (See : Khatri
\n(II) v. State of Bihar<\/a> (1981) 1 SCC 627]. The
\nsaid observations would apply with equal, if
\nnot greater, force in the matter of discharge of
\nconstitutional obligation of the State to
\nprovide medical aid to preserve human life. In
\nthe matter of allocation of funds for medical
\nservices the said constitutional obligation of
\nthe State has to be kept in view. It is
\nnecessary that a time-bound plan for
\nproviding these services should be chalked
\nout keeping in view the recommendations of
\nthe Committee as well as the requirements for
\nensuring availability of proper medical
\nservices in this regard as indicated by us and
\nsteps should be taken to implement the same.
\nThe State of West Bengal alone is a party to
\nthese proceedings. Other States, though not
\nparties, should also take necessary steps in
\nthe light of the recommendations made by the
\nCommittee, the directions contained in the
\nMemorandum of the Government of West
\nBengal dated August 22, 1995 and the further
\ndirections given herein”.\n<\/p>\n
In Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India,<\/a> [(1987)
\n2 SCC 165 : AIR 1987 SC 990],the issue related to
\nmanufacturing, selling and distributing approved
\nstandard of drugs and banning of injurious and harmful
\nmedicines. In the background of that question, this
\nCourt held right to maintenance and improvement of
\npublic health as one of the fundamental rights falling
\nunder Article 21 of the Constitution.
\nQuoting a well-known adage “Sharirmadhyam
\nkhalu dharma shadhanam” (healthy body is the very
\nfoundation of all human activities), the Court observed
\nthat
\n“maintenance and improvement of public
\nhealth have to rank high as these are
\nindispensable to the very physical existence of
\nthe community and on the betterment of
\nthese depends the\tbuilding of the society of
\nwhich the  Constitution  makers  envisaged.
\nAttending to public health, in our opinion,
\ntherefore, is of high priority–perhaps the one
\nat the top”.\n<\/p>\n
In National Textile Workers’ Union v. P.R.
\nRamakrishnan,<\/a> [(1983) 1 SCC 228 : AIR 1983 SC 75],
\nplacing emphasis on needs of changing society and
\nliberal construction of laws conferring benefits on weaker
\nclasses, Bhagwati J. (as His Lordship then was) said;
\n\t“We cannot allow the dead hand of the
\npast to stifle the growth of the living present.
\nLaw cannot stand still; it must change with
\nthe changing social concepts and values. If
\nthe bark that protects the tree fails to grow
\nand expand alongwith the tree, it will either
\nchoke the tree or if it is a living, tree, it will
\nshed that bark and grow a new living bark for
\nitself. Similarly, if the law fails to respond to
\nthe needs of changing society, then either it
\nwill stifle the growth of the society and choke
\nits progress or if the society is vigorous
\nenough, it will cast away the law which
\nstands in the way of its growth. Law must
\ntherefore constantly be on the move adopting
\nitself to the fast changing society and not lag
\nbehind. It must shake off the inhibiting legacy
\nof its colonial past and assume a dynamic role
\nin the process of social transformation. We
\ncannot therefore mechanically accept as valid
\na legal rule which found favour with the
\nEnglish courts in the last century when the
\ndoctrine of laissez faire prevailed. It may be
\nthat even today in England the courts may be
\nfollowing the same legal rule which was laid
\ndown almost a hundred years ago, but that
\ncan be no reason why we in India should
\ncontinue to do likewise. It is possible that this
\nlegal rule might still be finding a place in the
\nEnglish text books because no case like the
\npresent one has arisen in England in the last
\n30 years and the English courts might not
\nhave had any occasion to consider the
\nacceptability of this legal rule in the present
\ntimes. But whatever be the reason why this
\nlegal rule continues to remain in the English
\ntext books, we cannot be persuaded to adopt
\nit in our country, merely on the ground that it
\nhas been accepted as a valid rule in England.
\nWe have to build our own jurisprudence and
\nthough we may receive light from whatever
\nsource it comes, we cannot surrender our
\njudgment and accept as valid in our country
\nwhatever has been decided in England”.\n<\/p>\n
It cannot be gainsaid that right to life guaranteed
\nunder Article 21 of the Constitution embraces within its
\nsweep not only physical existence but the quality of life.
\nIf any statutory provision runs counter to such a right, it
\nmust be held unconstitutional and ultra vires Part III of
\nthe Constitution. Before more than hundred years, in
\nMunn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 US 113 : 24 Law Ed 77, Field,
\nJ. explained the scope of the words “life” and “liberty” in
\n5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
\nproclaimed;\n<\/p>\n
\t“By the term “life” as here used something
\nmore is meant than mere animal existence. The
\ninhibition against its deprivation extends to all
\nthese limits and faculties by which life is
\nenjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the
\nmutilation of the body or amputation of an
\narm or leg or the putting out of an eye or the
\ndestruction of any other organ of the body
\nthrough which the soul communicates with
\nthe outer world……. by the term liberty, as
\nused in the provision something more is
\nmeant than mere freedom from physical
\nrestraint or the bonds of a prison.”
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The above observations have been quoted with
\napproval by this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.<\/a>
\n(1964) 1 SCR 332 : AIR 1963 SC 1295. A similar view
\nthereafter has also been taken in several cases, viz.,
\nPrithi Pal Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 140 : AIR
\n1982 SC 1413; A.K. Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC
\n271 : AIR 1982 SC 710; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
\nCorporation,<\/a> (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180; State
\nof H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68 : AIR
\n1986 SC 847; Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1987)
\n4 SCC 238 : AIR 1987 SC 2117; A.R. Antulay v. R.S.
\nNayak,<\/a> (1988) 2 SCC 602 : AIR 1988 SC 1531; Vikram
\nDeo Singh v. State of Bihar, 1988 Supp SCC 734 : AIR
\n1988 SC 1782; Parmanand Katara v. Union of India,<\/a>
\n(1989) 4 SCC 286 : AIR 1989 SC 2039; Kishan Pattnayak
\nv. State of Orissa, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 258 : AIR 1989 SC
\n677; Shantistar Builders v. Narayan,<\/a> (1990) 1 SCC 520 :
\nAIR 1990 SC 630; Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh
\nSamiti v. State of U.P.,<\/a> (1990) 4 SCC449 : AIR 1990 SC
\n2060; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India,<\/a> (1990) 1 SCC
\n613 : AIR 1990 SC 1480; Delhi Transport Corporation v.
\nDelhi Transport Corporation Mazdoor Congress,<\/a> 1991
\nSupp (1) SCC 600(735) : AIR 1991 SC 101; Kapila
\nHingorani v. State of Bihar,<\/a> (2003) 6 SCC 1; District
\nRegistrar & Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank,<\/a> (2005)
\n1 SCC 496].\n<\/p>\n
The stand of the Union of India, however, is that to
\nprovide medical facilities to all defence personnel in
\nservice as well as retired, necessary steps have been
\ntaken. So far as ex-servicemen are concerned,
\nContributory Scheme of 2002 provides for medical
\nservices by charging ‘one time contribution’ on the basis
\nof amount of pension received by an employee. The
\namount ranges from Rs.1,800 to Rs.18,000 which
\ncannot be said to be excessive, disproportionate or
\nunreasonably high. The question, therefore, is whether
\nthe State can ask the retired defence personnel to pay an
\namount of contribution for getting medical facilities by
\nbecoming a member of such scheme.
\nIn our opinion, such a contributory scheme cannot
\nbe held illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional. Ultimately,
\nthe State has to cater to the needs of its employeespast
\nand present. It has also to undertake several other
\nactivities as a ‘welfare’ State. In the light of financial
\nconstraints and limited means available, if a policy
\ndecision is taken to extend medical facilities to ex-
\ndefence personnel by allowing them to become members
\nof contributory scheme and by requiring them to make
\n‘one time payment’ which is a ‘reasonable amount’, it
\ncannot be said that such action would violate
\nfundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
In State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, [(1998) 4
\nSCC 117 : AIR 1998 SC 1703], a three Judge Bench of
\nthis Court had an occasion to consider the question of
\nchange of policy in regard to reimbursement of medical
\nexpenses to its employees. Referring to earlier decisions,
\nthe Bench took note of ground reality that no State has
\nunlimited resources to spend on any of its projects.
\nProvisions relating to supply of medical facilities to its
\ncitizens is not an exception to the said rule. Therefore,
\nsuch facilities must necessarily be made limited to the
\nextent finances permit. No right can be absolute in a
\nwelfare State. An individual right has to be subservient
\nto the right of public at large.\n<\/p>\n
“This principle equally applies when there is
\nany constraint on the health budget on
\naccount of financial stringencies.”\n<\/p>\n
We are in agreement with the above view. In our
\nconsidered opinion, though the right to medical aid is a
\nfundamental right of all citizens including ex-servicemen
\nguaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, framing of
\nscheme for ex-servicemen and asking them to pay ‘one
\ntime contribution’ neither violates Part III nor it is
\ninconsistent with Part IV of the Constitution. Ex-
\nservicemen who are getting pension have been asked to
\nbecome members of ECHS by making ‘one time
\ncontribution’ of reasonable amount (ranging from
\nRs.1,800\/- to Rs.18,000\/-). To us, this cannot be held
\nillegal, unlawful, arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable.
\nObservations made by this Court in the cases relied
\nupon by the petitioner and intervenors including
\nConsumer Education & Research Centre referred to
\nearlier, must be read as limited to the facts before the
\ncourt and should not be understood to have laid down a
\nproposition of law having universal or general
\napplication irrespective of factual situation before the
\nCourt. To us, the policy decision in formulating
\nContributory Scheme for ex-servicemen is in accordance
\nwith the provisions of the Constitution and also in
\nconsonance with the law laid down by this Court. We see
\nno infirmity therein. We, therefore, hold that getting free
\nand full medical facilities is not a part of fundamental
\nright of ex-servicemen.\n<\/p>\n
We must, however, hasten to add that we are not
\nunmindful or oblivious of exemplary and extremely
\nuseful services rendered by defence personnel. We are
\nequally conscious of the fact that the safety, security and
\ncomfort enjoyed by the countrymen depend largely on
\ndedication and commitment of our soldiers, sailors and
\nairmen. We are also aware that they are exposed to
\nharsh terrain and discharge their duties in hostile
\nconditions of life. For days and months, they are at
\nplaces covered by snow or in desert or in wild forests.
\nThey are unable to come in contract with their family
\nmembers, kiths and kins or rest of the world. They are
\nnot in a position to enjoy even usual and day-to-day
\ncomforts and amenities of life available to ordinary men
\nand women. At times, they are not able to communicate
\nto their friends and relatives. It is also not in dispute
\nthat the question relates to a particular class of persons
\nwhich is a ‘diminished category’, retired prior to January
\n1, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
Taking into account all these facts and the
\ncircumstances in their entirety, on March 8, 2006, we
\npassed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Mr. K. S. Bhati, learned counsel   appearing
\nfor Petitioner No. 1, commenced   his
\nsubmissions   at   10.30   a.m. and
\nconcluded   at   2.35   p.m. Thereafter, Mr.
\nJ.S. Manhas,   learned   counsel   appearing
\nfor   Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, made   his
\nsubmissions   till   3.00   p.m.     Mr.   Ravi P.
\nMehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the
\nUnion of India, made his submissions till 3.25
\np.m.  Mr. K.S. Bhati, learned counsel,
\nthereafter rejoins and concluded at 3.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
        Hearing concluded.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tWe   have   heard   the   learned
\ncounsel   for   the   parties   on   the questions
\nof   law,   particularly   on   the   aspect   of
\nthe   correctness   of   broad observations
\nmade   in   the   decision   of   a   three-Judge
\nBench   in   Consumer Education   Research
\nCentre   &   Ors.  vs.  Union   of   India   &
\nOrs.<\/a>  (1995   (3) S.C.C.43).\n<\/p>\n
\t\tDuring the course  of hearing  with
\nthe assistance of  the  learned counsel,   we
\nhave perused the Ex-servicemen
\nContributory   Health   Scheme [for short,
\n“E.C.H.S.”] dated 30th  December, 2002.   The
\ncontribution  to be made by an ex-serviceman
\nso as to avail the benefit of health scheme
\nunder the   E.C.H.S.   is   one-time   payment
\nranging   from   Rs.1800\/-   to   Rs.18,000\/-
\ndepending upon the amount of pension drawn
\nby him.  In this writ petition, we   are
\nconcerned   with   the   cases   of   those   ex-
\nservicemen   who   have   retired before 1st
\nJanuary, 1996.   It is evident  that this class
\nof ex-servicemen is a diminishing category.
\nThe Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
\nshall consider,   without   it   being  treated
\nas   a  precedent,  the  question  of   granting
\nthe waiver  of  contribution required to be
\nmade under the E.C.H.S. by the ex-
\nservicemen of the category with which we are
\nconcerned, i.e., those who have   retired
\nprior   to   1st  January,   1996,   having
\nregard   to   the   contribution that   may
\nhave   been   made   by   them   in   the
\nservice   of   the   nation   and particularly
\nconsidering   that   they,   while   in   service,
\nwere   not   making   any payment   so   as
\nto   enjoy   the   benefit   of   medical   care.
\nAlternatively,   the Government can also
\nconsider making payment on behalf of those
\nwho may be   interested   in   availing   the
\nbenefits   under   the   E.C.H.S.   In   case   of
\nany difficulty in granting this one-time
\nconcession, the Government shall file an
\naffidavit within a period of four weeks, placing
\non record the approximate amount which may
\nhave to be waived or contributed by the
\nGovernment on behalf   of   such   category
\nof   ex-servicemen.     Further,   if   the
\nGovernment decides to waive it or pay it,
\nwithout it being treated as a precedent, in
\nthat event, the amount may not be
\nincorporated in the affidavit.   The waiver or
\npayment would be only in respect of those
\nwho voluntarily wish to join the E.C.H.S.\n<\/p>\n
Judgment is reserved”.\n<\/p>\n
In the above order, we suggested that the
\nGovernment may waive payment of contribution charges
\nor may consider to pay requisite ‘one time contribution’
\non behalf of the employees who may be interested in
\navailing the benefits of ECHS. We also indicated that in
\ncase of any difficulty in granting this one time
\nconcession, the Government may file an affidavit within
\na period of four weeks placing on record the approximate
\namount which may have to be waived or contributed by
\nthe Government on behalf of such category of ex-
\nservicemen. No such affidavit has been filed by the
\nGovernment so far. It can, therefore, safely be presumed
\nthat the Government has no difficulty in waiving\/paying
\ncontribution as a ‘one time measure’ on behalf of ex-
\ndefence personnel who retired prior to January 1, 1996
\nand wish to avail benefits of ECHS. Obviously, the said
\nquestion will not arise in future. We, therefore, dispose of
\nthe matter in the light of our earlier order and the
\nobservations made therein.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition deserves
\nto be partly allowed. Keeping in view totality of facts and
\ncircumstances, in our considered view, the ends of
\njustice would be met if we hold the Ex-servicemen
\nContributory Health Scheme, 2002 (ECHS) to be legal,
\nvalid, intra vires and constitutional but direct the
\nrespondent-Government either to waive the amount of
\ncontribution or to pay such amount on behalf those ex-
\nservicemen who retired prior to January 1, 1996 and
\nwho intend to avail medical facilities and benefits under
\nthe said scheme by exercising option by becoming
\nmembers of ECHS. In other words, it is open to ex-
\ndefence personnel, who retired prior to January 1, 1996
\nto become members of ECHS and to claim medical
\nfacilities and benefits under the said scheme without
\npayment of contribution amount. They are, however, not
\nentitled to claim medical allowance in future. The writ
\npetition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute
\nto the extent indicated above. In the facts and
\ncircumstances, however, parties are directed to bear
\ntheir own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen … vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 Author: C Thakker Bench: Cji Y.K. Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan, S.H. Kapadia, C.K. Thakker Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 210 of 1999 PETITIONER: CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS & ORS. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nConfederation Of Ex-Servicemen ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-21T05:21:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"60 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen … vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-21T05:21:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":12033,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-21T05:21:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen … vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-21T05:21:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"60 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen … vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-21T05:21:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006"},"wordCount":12033,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006","name":"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-21T05:21:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/confederation-of-ex-servicemen-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen … vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131749","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}