Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Surat Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors - CWP-867-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2634 (26 April 2006)


C.W.P.No.867 of 2006

Date of Decision: 25.04.2006

Surat Singh



State of Haryana and Others



PRESENT: Mr.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.


This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.05.2005 (Annexure P-5) and to further direct the respondents to reimburse balance amount of medical bill amounting to Rs.45,930.39 Ps.

along with interest @ 12% per annum from the due date with further interest @ 12% per annum on delayed payment i.e. Rs.1,27,135.39 Ps. ( from 27.1.2000 to 10.11.2004).

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while in service has suffered a massive heart attack on 31.10.1999 and was hospitalised in BBC, Heart Care, Pruthi Hospital, 301, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar City. He remained admitted there from 1.11.1999 to 4.11.1999 and incurred expenses for a sum of Rs.1,42,445.50 Ps. on his treatment. The petitioner has submitted his medical bills for reimbursement on 27.1.2000. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service as a Driver from Haryana Roadways on 30.04.2000. However, by that time no reimbursement was made to him. It was only on 8.11.2000 that respondent No.3 forwarded the medical bill of the petitioner to respondent No.1 for sanction. Respondent No.3 conveyed sanction of Rs.81,205/- out of total bill of Rs.1,27,135.39 Ps. vide his letter dated 10.11.2004 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner served a legal notice dated 4.1.2005 (Annexure P-4) through his counsel claiming reimbursement of remaining amount of Rs.45,930.39 Ps. along with interest @ 12% per annum. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.4713 of 2005 claiming reimbursement of balance amount of medical bill. The above mentioned writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.3.2005 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notice (Annexure P-4) by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.05.2005 (Annexure P-5) rejected the claim of the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that while passing the impugned order dated 24.05.2005 (Annexure P- 5), instructions dated 30.11.1993 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondents have not been kept in view. Those instructions in unmistakable terms provide that those employees who are to be operated upon would be given reimbursement at the rates admissible for the patients, treated in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi/P.G.I. It is further provided that the amount which is to exceed the rates of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi/P.G.I. would be reimbursed to the extent of 75% and rest of the amount of 25% will be borne by the employee himself. The matter is no longer res integra as the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6462 of 1999 decided on 29.7.1999 had interpreted these instructions.

The Division Bench has taken the view that the employee like the petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement at the rates admissible by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi plus 75% of the expenditure in excess thereof, in accordance with the policy adopted by the respondent- State.

In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the balance 75% of the amount incurred by the petitioner on his treatment in excess to the rates admissible by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi in accordance with the policy instructions (Annexure P-1). The payment shall now be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date, a certified copy of this order is received by the respondents, failing which the petitioner would also be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum.





April 25, 2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.