The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of medical facilities to the appellants was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional, violating their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The appellants challenge an order by the Single Judge dismissing their writ petition. They sought directions to include their names in the medical card and privilege passes of Om Prakash Gorawara (hereafter “Gorawara”) and to issue them separate cards. The appellants were Gorawara's wife and daughter; neither are employed, and the first appellant, wife (hereafter “Madhu”) is suffering from various chronic ailments. The present proceedings were preceded by a series of litigation between the appellants and second respondent. One of these resulted in applications of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The other cases include proceedings alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). At the end of these litigations, the second respondent started paying maintenance to the appellants.

2. Gorawar is a former employee of Indian Railways, the third respondent. The Indian Railways Medical Manual and the Railway Servant Pass Rules allows for the issue of a REHLS card and establishes the “wife” and “unmarried daughter” as “family” for the purposes of extending medical card and privilege pass facilities to them. The families of current and former railway servants and officers are thus entitled to avail of medical services from railway hospitals so long as they are carrying the REHLS card. Before 2010 the appellants were listed as family/dependents on the medical card of the second respondent. In 2010 the appellants applied for and were denied separate medical cards by the first respondent, Northern Railways (referred to hereafter by name). Before his retirement in 2012, Gorawara removed the appellants names from his medical card, disentitling them to free medical services that are otherwise available to the dependents of railway employees.

3. A writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 6535/2015, against the decision of Northern Railways taken in 2010 to deny the Appellants the medical card was filed before this court. The court directed the General Manager, Northern Railways to decide the matter expeditiously. On 23.11.2015 the General Manager, Northern Railways issued the speaking order denying the appellants the medical cards and privilege passes, and consequently the use of the free medical facilities. It is against this order of Northern Railways that a writ petition was filed before this court, resulting in the impugned judgment. The Learned Single Judge, rejected the appellants writ petition, holding that the issue involved a personal dispute and in the absence of nomination of the appellants as family members, by Gorwara, they could not claim the medical and pass benefits.

4. The Appellants argue that Gorwara had initially declared them as eligible to secure medical facilities from the railways and nominated them as such, but subsequently removed their names. This was done by allegedly applying for a duplicate medical card and omitting the appellants name in the “dependants” column of the new medical card. The appellants urge that there is no separation of marital ties between Gorwara and his wife, and thus he cannot disown the Appellants. The Appellants bring to the Courts notice that the Appellants have filed a Criminal Revision Petition to enhance the amount of maintenance. Considering these facts the Appellants contend that the speaking order of 23.11.2015 is arbitrary, discriminatory, and hence unconstitutional.

5. The Appellants also allege a violation of Section 602(2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume, which states Medical attendance and treatment facilities shall be available, free of charge, to all “Railway employees” and their family members and dependent relatives, irrespective of whether they are in Group A, Group B, Group C, Group D, whether they are permanent or temporary, in accordance with the detailed rules as given in Section C of this Chapter.” Thus, the Appellants claim that they are entitled to fr