Mange Ram Sharma v. Union of India

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the action of the respondents, whereby in meetings held on 21.06.2022, 23.01.2024 and 17.09.2024, the respondent’s committee declined to process the petitioner’s claim for the provision of a right lower limb extension prosthesis for his daughter.

2. It is stated that the petitioner’s daughter suffers from a 65% permanent physical disability affecting her right lower limb. Her condition is medically complex, as she has been diagnosed with both Proximal Femoral Focal Deficiency (CFFD) and Cervico-Thoracic Congenital Scoliosis.

3. It is submitted that given the peculiar affliction of the petitioner’s daughter, Orthopaedic Department of AIIMS has prescribed a specialized extension prosthesis.

4. It is an admitted position between the parties that the petitioner’s entitlement is to be assessed on the basis of Office Memorandum No. S- 11011/25/2014/CGHS-(P) dated 08.07.2014, issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The said memorandum, duly placed on record and annexed to the present petition as Annexure-P[6], reads as under:

5. It is further submitted that the prosthesis, as required by the petitioner, has previously been treated by the respondents as ‘unlisted’ under the CGHS framework. Accordingly, Clause 3(viii) of the aforementioned Office Memorandum was invoked, and vide Sanction Order dated 20.10.2016, an amount of Rs.2,08,500/- was approved for the procurement of the said prosthesis. The said Sanction Order has been placed on record as reads as under:

6. Attention is also drawn to the communication dated 09.12.2021 from the Chief Medical Officer, CGHS (North Zone) to the petitioner, which categorically acknowledges that the prosthesis required by the petitioner’s daughter is unlisted under CGHS provisions. The said communication reads as under:

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the applicability of Clause-3(viii) of the Office Memorandum dated 08.07.2014 has been acceded to by the respondent in correspondence. The same is also evident from the respondents’ own conduct in granting previous sanction to the petitioner for the procurement of the required prosthesis, amounting to Rs.2,08,500/-.

8. The said approval granted (vide Sanction Order dated 20.10.2016) by the competent authority was premised upon the application of Clause-3(viii) the very same Office Memorandum dated 08.07.2014. It is pertinent to note that the earlier prosthesis purchased pursuant to the said sanction had a limited shelf life, thereby necessitating its replacement.

9. Vide order dated 29.04.2025, taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, it was directed as under:

period of three weeks.”

10. Pursuant to the above directions, a meeting is stated to have been convened on 20.05.2025, wherein the petitioner’s claim was once again rejected, with the respondents reiterating their earlier decision dated 21.06.2022, in terms of which entitlement of the petitioner has to be restricted to Rs.73,040/ on the basis that the petitioner’s case is covered by item no-7.a of Annexure-IA of office memorandum dated 08.07.2014.

11. The position adopted by the respondent is untenable, not only in view of the peculiar and complex medical condition of the petitioner’s daughter, but also on account of the respondent’s own prior conduct, as noticed hereinabove.

12. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh quotations to the respondent/s for the procurement of the requisite prosthesis. The respondents are directed to verify the said quotations within a period of two weeks thereafter and issue the requisite sanction immediately thereafter.

13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.