1. Union of lndia v. HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALACHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.321.25 OF 2025 ORDITR: (pcr HotLble Sri lustice Suddala Chalapathi Rao) [-hc present writ petition is filed challenging, the orclt'r passccl Lr)' the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyclerabac'l (lrcreinaftcr referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A No.02l / 00226/2023, cl.rtet'l I1.06.2025, wherein the lcarrrecl Tribunal rr.as 2 pleased to allow the said O.p., dirccti.g the respond( nts to reimburse the entire expenditure incurred by the respondent/ c aimant towards the medical treatment of the appricant and l"ris wife , within a period of three months frorn the datc of receipt of a copy o[ I re order. I Brief facts of the case:-

2. The applicant joincd in the pctitioners_organi:ation as postal Assistant on 15.07.1981 and got superannuated on i0.09.2022, alter serving the Department for more than 40 years. As re was covered under the Centra[ Governmcnt Health Scherne (_ ]HS) and was availing the CGIJS facitity as and when require l. Further, on

03.04.2022 due to acute chcst pairr, apprlicant was adrr itted in the star Hospital, Banjara IIitls, I l_r'cler.rbatl in cmcrgency antl had undergone Heart Bypass Surgery i.e., "Coronary Artery Bypasr; Graft Surgery,, on 04.04.2022. After recovery from the said a. lnent, he was discharged from the said hospital on 0g.04.2022 r n payment of medical expenditure for Rs.4,36,700/-. Likewise 1l e wife of the applicant was adrnitted in yeshocla Hospital, Se,< underabad on 27.04.2022 due t. acutc lrcac-lache. r. ernergcncy c(nl lition, she hacl undergone 'Endo Vascutar Coiting of [{ight ICI (Ophthalmic Segment) Aneul_1,511' on 28.04.2022. She was clische rged from the 3 said hospital on 30.04.2022 on payment of Rs.5,04,400/-. As the applicant was entitled for reimbursement of the expenditure, he has filed application for reimbursement of the said amounts incurred by him towards the said operations conducted in emergency situation That on 25.10.2022, the 3'd respondent inforrned the applicant that outpatient medical claims were sent to Khairatabad Head Office, for settlement at thcir cnd but, however, However, the said amounts were restricted from Rs.5,04,400/- to Rs.368,215.35 and Rs.4,36,700/- to Rs.2,75,127.68, and sent to the Regional Office for post t'acto approval. frurther, when the applicant has approached the wrrt petitioners-organization for releasing the total amount expenditure incurrcd br' [iim, the petitioners have informed him that his claim was settled in terms ctf 2074 rates. [t is contended that as the applicant ancl his wife had taken treatrnent in the year 2022 in a emergencv conclition, applying the rates of 2014 under CGHS Scheme is unjustiiied. lrurther, it is contended by the applicant that he arrd his wife had to undergo operations only in a emergerlcv conclition, rvhich n,as life-threatening and at that point of time that there rt,as no other g(), except to reach the appropriate nearcst hospitals for meclical atttntion. lrurther it is contended that though 4 the applicant was entitled for the total reimbursr rent, petitioners have reskicted the clairn to lesser arrounts by appl., r,rg the 2014 rates and have not paid the total reimbursement desp te the applicant meeting the eligibiliry criteria.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioners . rave filed reply statement before the rearned Tribunal, though the ruthorities have not denied the fact applicant took h.eatment fr,r n 03.04.2O22 to 08'04'2022 and underwent'Coro.ar' Artery []vpass { irafting surgery of X3 grafts' as per the operation notes ancl :he amount of Rs.4,36,700/- chargecl bv the respective [rospital:;, however only contended that though thc paticnt g,ot admittcd uncl: . the cmergency condition he has not obtained prior permissi,t r and further contended that the hospitals are non_CC[{S cmp;r.elled hospitals and the total bill amount submitted b1. thc arpprtican: was sent to the Regional office for approvar, who in turn sent he bifl to the Additional Director, CGI{S for clarification. L_.rp,< rr which, the Additional Direcror, CCHS llrlc lertcr No.CGHS,, lyD/SSl2022_ 23/9893, dated 29.172022, ir.rsrructed to process rht, bill as per the CGHS Code-529 for thc appticant and as pcr thc aid Code, the amount was restricted to Rs.1,46,136/_ ancl the sarr,, arnount was 5 sanctioned to the applicant and insofar as the wife of the applicant it is contended that she was admitted in Yesodha Hospital, Secunderabad, which is also non-CGHS empanelled hospital and it was admitted that she took treatmenr from 27.04.2022 to 30.04.2022 and undergone 'Endovascular coiling of right ICA (Ophthalmic Segment) Aneurysm' proccclurc as per thc discharge summary and the hospital authorities have charged an amount of Rs.5,04,400 /- and further contended that though the patient got admitted under the emergencv condition there rt,as no prior permission obtained from the authorities and as the hospital rsa non-CGHS empanelled hospital, the bill was sent to the Regional Office for approval and further clarification to thc ,\clditiorral Director, CGHS. Upon the clarification, Additionat Director uide his letter No.CGHS/HYD/ 33/2022-23/9893, datecl 29.71.2022 directed the Department to proccss the. bitl as frL. r' CGI tS Code-986, hence the amount was restricted as per the said code to Rs.39,560/- and the same amount was sanctioned by the ofiicials. Further, it is stated that aide Department of Hearlth ;rnr1 [:.rrnil_r' \\relfarc Memo No.F.N o.2-1/2012/ CGHS/VCICGHS(P), clated 01.08.2013, the 'CGHS package rate' shall mean and include lump sr-rm cost of inpatient treatment and 6 such other procedures and medicine are not inclr,r led in the said health procedures and contended that the amounts vere sanctioned and paid as per the CGHS rates and as per thc odes. The writ petitioner/respondent authorities contended that the 'e are no merits in the O.A. Further, writ petitioners are contended : Lat the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts in proper perspectivt_, i nd allowed the O.A. directing the writ petitioners authorities to pz i, total amount incurred by the respondent/applicant without an1. j rstification and prayed to set aside the orders of the leamed 'l'ribur.rai rv allowing the instant writ petition.

4. We have heard Mr. G. Vcnkatesr.r,arlu, lc.rr r ccl Additional Central Government Counsel for peritioners antl having given earnest consideration to his submissions, perused tht, 'ecord and this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of adrnission. 5, The points that arise for consideration of this r )ourt are, 1) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in rlirccting the writ petitioner to rcirnburse thc iotal c i ,encliture incurred by the applicani and his wifc adrnirt.d irr thc emergency condition who took treatment in a rr rn_CCHS hospital without prior permission of the rvrit 1 etitioner; 7 2) Whether the orders in the O.A.No.021/00226/ 2023 on the file of Cenrral Administrative Tribunal are sustainable in [aw?

6. The parties herein shall be referred as per cause list before the learned Tribunal. II. Analysis and observations:-

7. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal and the contentions of the writ petitioner along with their counter-affidavit, which are filed before the Tribunal, and it is evident that the applicant, who has worked as Postal Assistant in the petitioners- organization for about 40 1,gn.t, rt,as enti[led for reimbursement of the amounts as per the total meclical cxpenditure incurred under the CGHS. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant undergone Heart Bypass Surgery i.e., 'Coronary r\rter1, Bvpass Graft Surgery'

04.M.2022 and likewise, the wife of the applicant has undergone 'Endo Vascular Coiling of Rigtrt ICA (Ophthalmic Segment) Aneurysm' on 28.01.2022 ancl that both thc opcrations needed to be treated in emergency condition ar.rcl it is undisputed fact that the applicant has incurred an amount of Rs.4,36,700/- for his treatment and Rs.5,04,400/- for his n,i[e's treatnlr.nt. It is also not in dispute that e the applicant and his wife had undergone medical rrocedurcs and were admitted to the respective hospitals u r ( er emergency conditions, where they were operated upon und,r the care and supervision of the said hospitals

8. The only objection/contention raised by t te respoudent authorities is, that the applicant and his wife had rrt,t obtained prior permission from the respondent-Department to un iergo thc said medical procedures in the hospitals which are not crr ranelled under CCI{S scheme. In such an event, the responil, r'rt authorities conterrdcd that the applicant is only entitled for thc, rnounts as per 2014 rates of CGHS that too they are only entitled k'r ttre arnount as per Codcs attached for such medical procedurcs. lt i also;rduritted fact that the said operations, which were conductc'ci r r thc applicant and his wife, were in 2022 and in such circumstancc; .rp1-rlvirlg rates of 2014 i.e., almost around eight years from thc s,r cl ve.rr, n,here substantial medical treatment has increased alm<,r i tenfolcl and applying the rates of 2014 for the operations donc rr tht vc.ar 2022 and more so, reimbursing the amounts under the ( (,( cs att.tclt('d [o the medical procedure, lacks reasonableness and is urr ustifierl. Irr the rece.nt times procedures of medical treatment increas: I sul-rst.rrrtiallv 9 and the respondents though do not dispute that the applicant and his wife under the medical procedures in a emergency condition and incurred the expenditure ought not to have applied the rates of 20-1.4 for the operation conducted in the year 2022, that too decreasing their reimbursement to a larger extent by reimbursing the amount as per the codes. The said payment of the amount to the applicant and his wife as per 2014 rates and separate cotics in lump sum as they have not obtained prior permission from the respondent authorities is nothing but unjustified and also amounts to violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besicles violative of Directive principles of State policy which flow, from the welfare state when the government formulates policy and larv for all fairness.

9. Learned Tribunal basing on the juclgment o[ the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Kant |ha v. Union of Indiar and also Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others2 and also Association of Medical Super Specialty Aspirants & Residents and others v. Union of India and others3, held that it is duty of the State to secure trealth of its citizen as its primary duty and that the right to hcalttr is integral to right to ' 1zote1 16 scc rEz ' 1rsse1 z scc :ls ' 1zor9; s scc ooz 10 life and the Government has a constitutional oblipz tion to provide health facilities and that in view of the law laid dor,r,r bv the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Kant Jha (supra) which was fc I owed by many High Courts in the case of Union of India and anotl er vs. Joginder Singha in the High Court of Delhi and M.S.Vishwar athan v. Union of India (O.A.No.021l0569/2023 of Hyderabad Ben :h, I lvdcratrad) and B.Prasada Rao v. Additional Director, CG[I; and another (O.A.No.153 of 2079 of Central Administrative Tribrr ral, t tyderabacl Bench), held that the issue involved in the instant ( ase is no morc res integra supported by the principles laid dor,r,n ry the Hon,ble Apex Court and various High Courts, held that thc r:spondents are unrler a legal obtigation to ensure timely treatment lo a person irr need of such treatment and non-payment of full reirr burstrnent is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. Though in the instant case it is an admitk,r fact that the treatnrcnt w,as taken in medical emergency, thus tht, "cjection oi thc total claim on the ground that no permission has tt e.n obtained to takc treatment in respective non-CGHS hospitats ancl more so, applvirrg rates of 2014 and paying the amount .1:, lrer the code.s 2023 SCC Onlrne Det 2707

11. attached to the respective plan of treatment, is nothing but violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also the scheme under CGHS and the Tribunal has allowed the O.A., and directed the respondent authorities to pay the total amount incurred by the applicant and his wife. III. Findingsr

11. In the factual matrix of the case, though time and agairy the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have been directing the State to look after the welfare o[ the employees and their families so also rights of citizens heatth which emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of tndia, despite the same, the State has been denying the legitimate righr of the c-mplovec.s by adopting unfair methods and denying the claims of the employees who are admittedly enrolled and entitled under the CGHS Scheme of the respondent authorities.

72. For better appreciation though the principte of law lay down bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various I {igh Courts has been reiterated in the paragraph No.9 this juclgment, we deem it necessary to exhact the relevant portions of the Hon'ble Apex Court order and High Court so as to give clear vision of the ;aid judgments 72 and principle for better understanding.

13. [n Shiva Kant ]ha (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Courr held as under: "77- It is a scttled lcgal position that the governmerl cl uring lris lifctime or af ter his retirement is cntitletl benefit of thc medical facilities and no fetters can be pt, righLs. It is accepbable to common sense, that ultimate dc how a patient should be treated vests only with the clc< rvell r,,crsed arrd expert both on academic qualifi cxpericncc gained. Vcry little scope is left to the p.t re'lative to dccidc as to the manner in which the ailmen treatcd. Specialitr' [rospitals are established for trt specificd ailments and services of doctors specialised in are availed bv patients only to eruure proper, require trearment. Can it be said drat taking treahnent in special br.' iLself woultl tleprive a person to claim reimbursemc r thc grotrnd that thc said hospital is not included in the p ortlt,r. [ [rt' right to medical claim camot be denied mc .r the namc of thc hospital is not included in the governr Tht rc.rl test must be the fachrm of treatrnenL Before ,r clain is lronourcd, the authorities are bound to ensurc a:j thc claimant had acfually taken treatment and the [re.rhncnt is supported by records duly certified 1,, hospitals c(rncerned. Once, it is established, the clainr dcniecl on to'hnical grouncls. Clearly, in the present cast a t,crv inhurnan approach, the officials of CGHS havr, grant of rncclical rcimbursement in full to the petitioncr I to approach tiis Court. cmp[oycc to gct the ced on his :ision as to Lor, who is ation and cnt or his shoulcl L,c rtmcnt of diripline I and sale tv hospital t solcly on lvernment lv because rertt rlrder'. rv medical o whether factum o[ doctors/ canrrot ho by taking icnied the rrcing him

18. This is hardlv a saLisfactory state of affairs. Tl- .ruth()rities arc recluirecl to be more responsive and -. nrcthanrt al nr.rnnt,r cleprive an employee of hrs rcimbtr rst, rnen t- -re Ccntral Government Health Schen h'as p.rrufrsulded r.r,ith a purpose of providing health facil to thc Ccrrtral (lovcrnment employees so that they r n'ithout mcdir al care after retirement. It was in furthe i olrjt,ct of a w,t lfate State, which must provide for such rr that thc stlrcnrc rr,as brought in force. In the facts of t (as(', iI c.rnnot l,t'ttcniotl that the writ petitioner w-as aclr.r : relevant nnot in a legitin.l.r t€l c (CGHS) t1, srhenre e' not left nce oi the 'dic;il carc rc pr(.sc11[ ttcrl in thc 13 above said hospitals in emergency conditions. Moreover, the law does not require that prior permission has to be taken in such situation where the survival of the person is the prime considcration. Thc doctors did his opcration and had implanted CRT-D device and have done so as one cssential and rimely. Though it is the claim of the respondent State that the rates were exorbitant whereas the rates charged for such facitity shall be only at CGHS rates and that too after following a proper procedure given in the circulars issued on time to time by the Ministry concerned, it also cannot be denied that the p€titioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions for survival of his tife r+,hich requirement was above the sanctions and treatment in empanclled hospitals.

19. [n the present view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that CGHS is responsible for taking care of healthcare needs and well-being of the Central Government employees and pensioners. [n the facts and circumstances of thc case, we arc o[ the opinion that the treatrnent of the petitioner in non-empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option [cft with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondcnt State to pay the balance amount of Rs 4,99,555 to the writ petitioner. We also make it clear that the said decision is confined to this case only."

11. [n a recent decision in a case of Anirudh Prataprai Nansi v. Union of Indias, the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Bombay held as under: "9. Civen the grave and critical nature oI tlrc lrctitionc.r's mt'dical contlition, and the lack of any CGHS cmpanellecl hospitals having necessary license, approvals and expertise, the peLihoner had no alternative, but to avail heatment at Sir H.N. Rcliance Foundation Hospital. On 26 November 202O, Dr. P.J. Nathani, Professor and Head of Cardiology at Lokmanva Titak Nlunicipat N{cdical College and General Hospital, lr{umbai, also opined and rccommended cardiac fteart) transplantation to tht' petitioncr as the nccessary course of treatrnent. He was adnritted at the H.N_ Reliance Foundation hospital for a prc-hansplant invcstigation known as "work-up". ' 2025 SCC Online Bom 2391 t4 ,r

46. Thus, paiicnts likc thc pctitroner, who is a pensi,r be deprived of bencfits of medical reimbursemen rcceivcd treatmctlt at private hospital, more parti<.r:l thc petitioncr's casc is acccpted as a genuine case, r,/ opinion, was certainly of an urgent nahrre. In the I the resporrclents in no tnanrrer whatsoever dispute tll of tlrc pctitiont'r ancl thc expcltditure incurred. Thr' -, havc all povl,ors to examinc the credentials of the I and enquirc about the genuineness of the claim. Th r facts of the petitioner's case remained indisputed, i.r'. medical trcatment was not in dispute in the petitionc spccializecl or urgcnt treatment and when the amour.r thc petitioncr is thc actual expenditure incurred by I not in dispu(t', irr thcsc circumstancc's, to make thc suffcr for rr.inr b urscment, in clur opinion, amounts t(l justice .rnd a glaring violation of the fundamt'r guaranteecl to a citizen who is the former emplo' Central Covcrnrncnt. In such circumstances, in our () High Porvcr Cilnrmittee ought to have been humant,l in dealing n'ith thc pctitioner's case and ought I L( adop11.d.r rnt'ch,rnicaI and a narrow-mincled approaclr I(rr, cannot when he rrly, when rich in our rsent case, breatment spondents rplication-s i, once the when thc' receiving laimed bv im is also Pctitioner ravt'sty of tal righs ce of the ,inion, the , sensitive t to have

15. In a recc'nt juclgmeut of the llon'ble High Corr t of Bombay in W.P.No.7546 of 2022, dated 06.06.2025, it has been he I I in paragraph- 45 as undc-r "15. . ..lt ntav bc true that for certain ailments ratei hervcvor, tlrt' hoalth issues are such that there cer str.rillht jackt,t lirrnrula in arriving at the rates for reirr I ancl irr .r gir t.rr sittr.rtion, thc competent officer or the I I bc'rt'qrrilt'tl t() lll,lltt rcim [.ru rscnrcn I considering the trt n'ccir t,tl t,1 thc patrcnt/employce. ln many r<'imtrrrrscurr,n[s, tlrt'rc may not be any issue or disl r amount o[ rcinrl.rtr rscrncnt, however, this would not r in evcrv pcculiar, scrious, spccialized cases of medical I [he roinrlrtrrscnrcnt necds to be only as per the rates p rcdctr,rnt int,tl. Ihis u,ould bc most unrealistic, rr discrinritt.rtrrry as irr tlrr. prcsclt situation. Any emp|1rvr becaust'lrt'has rt.tirctl, ought rrot to be differently trra it comt,s to 3,t.nuinc.rnd realistic l.realth expenditur: attotht,r .rS[)()Ct tftat tfic reimbursement rates are not re v time to tinrc in tlrt' .t[rsenct' of which, they arc utrrcalisIrt." rre fixed, not be a ursemenI 'C would rtm(.nt as of such te on the rean that 'eahncnt, shich are Lfair and e, mcrclt, cd r.r,hen 'Ihere is sed from rcnclered

76. In the instant case, the employee who has rendered almost 40 15 ycars of service to tlre petitioner-organization is enrolled and entitled under the CGHS Scheme and as such, the petitioners-organization are duty bound to safeguard the health and reimburse the expenditure incurred by the applicant and his wife. Denial of the same by the peLitioner-organization amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and welfare the employee which is the paramount consideration of the State under Directive principles of State Policy. When there is no dispute in respect of expenditure incurred by them for the operations underwent by them in a emergcncv condition, as the applicant has not taken prior permission irom the authorities is unjustified and lackadaisical act of the authorities. 'fhus, in our considered view, the action of the pet itioncrs-organization in refusing the total claim on the reasons aforesaid is not justified and is in gross violation of Article 21 of the Corrstitution of [ndia and also the welfare the citizen under directive principrlcs o[ State policy though not justifiable, but ttre cluty being cast on the state while drafting the policies.

17. [n vierv of the afore stated judicial precedents oi the Flon,ble Su1-r1cn1s Court and also various High Courts as it is admitted fact 76 that the applicant has incurred expenditure for his Teatment along with his wife's treatment and the appropriate : lls along with emergency certificates are also produced to show t:r : circumstances which constrained him to take treatment in a non-Cl I{S empanelled hospitals and the acLion of the petitione r-organiza::t rn granting the rates of 2014 for not obtaining permission for treatm: rt and applying the rates of about eight ycars ago by codes, are noth I g but arbitrary, unreasonable arrd as such, the action of the petitionr: s in not paying the total amounts to tl're applicant and his wife is not iustified. At the cost of repetition, tt-re prior approval in the case of emergency treatment in non-CG[ IS hospital cannot be a grour d for denial of total reimbursenrent. [n our considered view, we lo not see any infirmity in the orr-ler prasseci bv the 'I'ribunal tl directing the petitioners to pay, the total amount incurred by the a: rlicant towards the treatment o[ himself ancl his wife. The findings ,r 'rived at by the Tribunal are just ancl r,'aliti, ancl thc interfcrence of t-r s Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a well sel tled findings of the Tribunal is not n,arrarrted. -fhe both issues fram: I by this Court are attswered accorclingI'n, arrcl .rgainst the writ petitiot Ler/respondent and in favour of thc respondcnt/applicant. 77 18. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. IV. Guidelines for reimbursement of amount to emplovees under CGHS: T9. We deem it appropriate to formulate the guidelines for payment and reimbursement of the amount to the needy employees undcr the CCHS Scheme:- 1) In the case of emergency, the patient/employee shal[ have the choice for treatment in the nearest hospital and upon production of the proper bills and on verifying rhe genuineness, the authorities Shall pay the total actual amount incurred by the employee. 2) The patient/employee need not require any prior pr.rmission if he gets treated in an non{CI{S hosprital in thc emergency condition subject to production oI emergr.rrcv ccrlificate from the concerned hospitals. 3) t he Department is at liberty to inspect t['re hospital and vcrify thc genuineness of the claim of the employee in ttrc circumstances of (1) and (2) and shall pay accordingly. {) Onli, in the case of planned treatment, the Department may tlircci the employee need to take prior approval to rSct trearnlent in the non{GHS hospital and only if thc crrlpanel[ec[ hospitals do not have the treatmcnt plan for thr. ailmcnts of the employee or dependant or irr the gir en 18 situation where an expert Medical Surgeon {) other medical professionaI services are essential. 5) The writ pctitiorrcr [)cpartmcnt authorities I lrall revise the list of l-rospitals to be included undcr the -IGI{S Scl-reme every two years or as per the requirements t I the employees or whenever ttrc rreccl ariscs in the consic eration of tlre Departrnent.

20. Accordingly, the Wnt Pctition is hereby disr issed and the writ petitioner Departmcr-rt sha[[ follow the at.< ve guidelines scrupulo usly. There shall be no orcler as to costs. Pendinl; Miscellaneous Application if ant' shall statrri closccl i/TRUE COPY// A I'rL, : t SD/. U.SUDHA \Nr REGISIRryI-- CTION OFFICER '\ -".--( One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE P'E/\ (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) ' AND oneFairCopytotheHon'b|eSRIJUSTICESUDDALA(){ALAPATHIRAo (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) KOSHY 'l! To,

1. 11 LR CoPies 2. The Under Secretary Affairs, New Delhi. Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, .h stice and Company

3. The Secretary, Telanganir Advocates Association' t ibrary' High Court

4.TheRegistarGeneral.HrqhCourtlorthestateofTelarTana'Hyderabad(to ' Buildings. HYderabad. ;i,.1;rtri; ih. .opy of rn,r o,fciro the vanous Heads of t ie Union of lndia for better amplementatron oi tl.,o C.ntiul Covernment Schen e (CGHS) to all the employe6s who take the treatnrent )

5. The Registrar Jucjrcial t. Hrr;h Cou(..for the State of -1 r langana' Hyderabad " tto""ntrj"l" the copv,rf tlrrs ,)r.ier to tre various Hea<t: rf the union o[ lndia toi O"itu|. rn.rpkTnrextJtrori .,f ir,., Central Government S( neme (CGHS) to all the employees who tako tho tr()atnren[ )

6. One CC to SRI couNSEL [OPUC] G VENKATESHVARLU, ADDITIONAL CENTRAL GOVT

7. One CC to Additional Solicitor General of lndia, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPUC]

8. Two CD Copies PVL BS \o{, HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 ORDER WP.No.32125 of 2025 '. iE a o( o,J 1lJ Ail (l7 2 f z .c) * F .:. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1) ) 1, a "$ \i rtF'