IN THE 237 Ishwar Devi State of Haryana CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of medical reimbursement amount amounting to Rs.10,58,338/ petitioner on her treatment from different hospitals as she suffered multiple injuries in the accident on 03.08.2022 2. petitioner was retired from the office of respondent No.4 after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012 and is getting her pension also from the said department. Further, on 03.08.2022, in the morning around 6.00 a.m. the petitio injuries on her head as well as other parts of the body and a fracture on her left leg. Due to which, the condition of the petitioner was serious, as such, 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Ishwar Devi VERSUS State of Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of medical reimbursement amount amounting to Rs.10,58,338/ petitioner on her treatment from different hospitals as she suffered multiple injuries in the accident on 03.08.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was retired from the office of respondent No.4 after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012 and is getting her pension also from the said department. Further, on 03.08.2022, in the morning around 6.00 a.m. the petitioner met with an accident, from which, she suffered multiple injuries on her head as well as other parts of the body and a fracture on her left leg. Due to which, the condition of the petitioner was serious, as such, HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28239-2023 Date of Decision: August 13, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondents HARPREET SINGH BRAR . Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.AG, Haryana. , Advocate for Mr.Rajesh Gaur, Advocate The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of differential medical reimbursement amount amounting to Rs.10,58,338/- incurred by the petitioner on her treatment from different hospitals as she suffered multiple counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was retired from the office of respondent No.4 after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012 and is getting her pension also from the said department. Further, on 03.08.2022, in the morning around 6.00 ner met with an accident, from which, she suffered multiple injuries on her head as well as other parts of the body and a fracture on her left leg. Due to which, the condition of the petitioner was serious, as such, , 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondents vocate The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of differential incurred by the petitioner on her treatment from different hospitals as she suffered multiple ontends that the petitioner was retired from the office of respondent No.4 after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012 and is getting her pension also from the said department. Further, on 03.08.2022, in the morning around 6.00 ner met with an accident, from which, she suffered multiple injuries on her head as well as other parts of the body and a fracture on her left leg. Due to which, the condition of the petitioner was serious, as such, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document was kept in Intensive Care Unit of Ravin Thereafter, the condition of the petitioner was deteriorating and keeping in view her serious condition, she was admitted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi. Admittedly, during her treatment, the petitioner remained comma w.e.f. 07.08.2022 to 21.08.2022. Thereafter, due to fracture in leg of petitioner, she was referred to Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital Saket, New Delhi on 28.02.2022, where she remained w.e.f. 22.08.2022 to 25.08.2022. After discharge of the p admitted in Amrit Dhara My Hospital, Karnal for operation of her left leg and finally after surgery she was discharged from the hospital on 05.09.2022. 3. discharge of the petitioner from hospital, submitted before the concerned authorities for medical reimbursement. Further, learned counsel relies upon letter dated 08.05.2023 and emergency certificate dated 15.05.2023 submits that the Civil Surgeon, Panipat vide Annexure P opinion that ‘patient had suffered from RSA Head Trauma Cerebella Cartesian fractural Cartesian and she was declared as an emergency case on the basis of hospita 03.08.2022 to 06.08.2022. Similarly, vide (Annexure P Panipat given opinion that the petitioner was treated from 7.8.2022 to 22.8.2022 at Max Super Speciality Hospital Saket, New Delh relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Versus Union of India passed in Writ Petition (C) No.694 2 was kept in Intensive Care Unit of Ravindra Hospital, Model Town, Panipat. Thereafter, the condition of the petitioner was deteriorating and keeping in view her serious condition, she was admitted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi. Admittedly, during her treatment, the petitioner remained comma w.e.f. 07.08.2022 to 21.08.2022. Thereafter, due to fracture in leg of petitioner, she was referred to Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital Saket, New Delhi on 28.02.2022, where she remained w.e.f. 22.08.2022 to 25.08.2022. After discharge of the petitioner from said hospital she got admitted in Amrit Dhara My Hospital, Karnal for operation of her left leg and finally after surgery she was discharged from the hospital on 05.09.2022. Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that after harge of the petitioner from hospital, submitted before the concerned authorities for medical reimbursement. Further, learned counsel relies upon letter dated 08.05.2023 and emergency dated 15.05.2023 (Annexures P submits that the Civil Surgeon, Panipat vide Annexure P opinion that ‘patient had suffered from RSA Head Trauma Cerebella Cartesian fractural Cartesian and she was declared as an emergency case on the basis of hospital records and treated at Artios Hospital, Panipat from 03.08.2022 to 06.08.2022. Similarly, vide (Annexure P Panipat given opinion that the petitioner was treated from 7.8.2022 to 22.8.2022 at Max Super Speciality Hospital Saket, New Delh relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Versus Union of India passed in Writ Petition (C) No.694 dra Hospital, Model Town, Panipat. Thereafter, the condition of the petitioner was deteriorating and keeping in view her serious condition, she was admitted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi. Admittedly, during her treatment, the petitioner remained in comma w.e.f. 07.08.2022 to 21.08.2022. Thereafter, due to fracture in leg of petitioner, she was referred to Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital Saket, New Delhi on 28.02.2022, where she remained w.e.f. 22.08.2022 to etitioner from said hospital she got admitted in Amrit Dhara My Hospital, Karnal for operation of her left leg and finally after surgery she was discharged from the hospital on Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that after harge of the petitioner from hospital, her medical record had been submitted before the concerned authorities for medical reimbursement. Further, learned counsel relies upon letter dated 08.05.2023 and emergency (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively) and submits that the Civil Surgeon, Panipat vide Annexure P-6, had given opinion that ‘patient had suffered from RSA Head Trauma Cerebella Cartesian fractural Cartesian and she was declared as an emergency case on l records and treated at Artios Hospital, Panipat from 03.08.2022 to 06.08.2022. Similarly, vide (Annexure P-7) Civil Surgeon, Panipat given opinion that the petitioner was treated from 7.8.2022 to 22.8.2022 at Max Super Speciality Hospital Saket, New Delhi and further relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha Versus Union of India passed in Writ Petition (C) No.694-2015, decided dra Hospital, Model Town, Panipat. Thereafter, the condition of the petitioner was deteriorating and keeping in view her serious condition, she was admitted to Max Super Speciality in comma w.e.f. 07.08.2022 to 21.08.2022. Thereafter, due to fracture in leg of petitioner, she was referred to Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital Saket, New Delhi on 28.02.2022, where she remained w.e.f. 22.08.2022 to etitioner from said hospital she got admitted in Amrit Dhara My Hospital, Karnal for operation of her left leg and finally after surgery she was discharged from the hospital on Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that after medical record had been submitted before the concerned authorities for medical reimbursement. Further, learned counsel relies upon letter dated 08.05.2023 and emergency ) and 6, had given opinion that ‘patient had suffered from RSA Head Trauma Cerebella Cartesian fractural Cartesian and she was declared as an emergency case on l records and treated at Artios Hospital, Panipat from 7) Civil Surgeon, Panipat given opinion that the petitioner was treated from 7.8.2022 to i and further Shiva Kant Jha 2015, decided PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document on 13.04.2018 empanelled hospital, if found of the amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned counsel submits that urgency in admitting the patient in hospital, claim of petitioner cannot be denied because the hospital is no as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of the paramount consideration. 4. Corporation submits that out of five hospitals where the petitioner was remained under Hospital, New Delhi and Artios Hospital, Panipat are not empanelled hospitals and as such, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the medical policy of the respondent 5. observations made in the petitioner as the Court has clarified that the exception was created in the facts and circumstances of that particular case only. applicable to the Central Government employee, whereas the respondent Corporation is an autonomous body governed by its Board of Directors. 6. record with their able assist 7. an accident in the morning of 03.08.2022 and had to remain admitted in different hospitals. The controversy in the present case is of non differential medical 3 on 13.04.2018, wherein it was held that during the treatment from the non empanelled hospital, if found genuine reasons, the medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned counsel submits that urgency in admitting the patient in hospital, claim of petitioner cannot be denied because the hospital is no as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of the paramount consideration. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that out of five hospitals where the petitioner was remained under treatment, two hospitals namely Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi and Artios Hospital, Panipat are not empanelled hospitals and as such, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the medical policy of the respondent-Corporation. However, learned State counsel submits that the benefit of the observations made in Shiva Kant Jha’s case (supra) the petitioner as the Court has clarified that the exception was created in the facts and circumstances of that particular case only. applicable to the Central Government employee, whereas the respondent Corporation is an autonomous body governed by its Board of Directors. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It is not in dispute that unfortunately the petitioner had met with an accident in the morning of 03.08.2022 and had to remain admitted in different hospitals. The controversy in the present case is of non differential medical reimbursement because the petitioner had remain wherein it was held that during the treatment from the non genuine reasons, the medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned counsel submits that urgency in admitting the patient in hospital, claim of petitioner cannot be denied because the hospital is not empanelled, as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that out of five hospitals where the petitioner was treatment, two hospitals namely Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi and Artios Hospital, Panipat are not empanelled hospitals and as such, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the medical ned State counsel submits that the benefit of the Shiva Kant Jha’s case (supra) cannot be extended to the petitioner as the Court has clarified that the exception was created in the facts and circumstances of that particular case only. Further, it was made applicable to the Central Government employee, whereas the respondent Corporation is an autonomous body governed by its Board of Directors. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the It is not in dispute that unfortunately the petitioner had met with an accident in the morning of 03.08.2022 and had to remain admitted in different hospitals. The controversy in the present case is of non-payment of reimbursement because the petitioner had remained wherein it was held that during the treatment from the non- genuine reasons, the medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned counsel submits that urgency in admitting the patient in hospital, t empanelled, as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation submits that out of five hospitals where the petitioner was treatment, two hospitals namely Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi and Artios Hospital, Panipat are not empanelled hospitals and as such, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the medical ned State counsel submits that the benefit of the cannot be extended to the petitioner as the Court has clarified that the exception was created in the Further, it was made applicable to the Central Government employee, whereas the respondent- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the It is not in dispute that unfortunately the petitioner had met with an accident in the morning of 03.08.2022 and had to remain admitted in payment of ed PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document admitted in two hospitals which were not empanelled. The hospital records were duly perused by the Civil Surgeon, Panipat and has given opinion that the condition of the petitioner was serious and it was (Annexure P claimant had actually undertaken treatment in an emergent condition as advised by the doctor to preserve the life of the claimant. The authorities concerned cannot de emergency. It is not the case of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is not supported by the hospital record. The employer of the petitioner is in obligation to ensure the timely medical assista Admittedly, the petitioner is 69 years of age. 8. merely because the claimant underwent treatment in a non such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into pla dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on her medical record, in order to save her life, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of hu 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the highest priority. 9. availability of timely medical care to those i the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of non-empanelment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, 4 admitted in two hospitals which were not empanelled. The hospital records were duly perused by the Civil Surgeon, Panipat and has given opinion that the condition of the petitioner was serious and it was (Annexure P-6 and P-7). In such a way, the test remains claimant had actually undertaken treatment in an emergent condition as advised by the doctor to preserve the life of the claimant. The authorities concerned cannot deny the claim of the petitioner undertaken in the emergency. It is not the case of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is not supported by the hospital record. The employer of the petitioner is in obligation to ensure the timely medical assista Admittedly, the petitioner is 69 years of age. The claim for medical reimbursement ought not to be dismissed merely because the claimant underwent treatment in a non such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into pla dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on her medical record, in order to save her life, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the highest priority. Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the availability of timely medical care to those i the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of empanelment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, admitted in two hospitals which were not empanelled. The hospital records were duly perused by the Civil Surgeon, Panipat and has given opinion that the condition of the petitioner was serious and it was the case of emergency 7). In such a way, the test remains whether the claimant had actually undertaken treatment in an emergent condition as advised by the doctor to preserve the life of the claimant. The authorities ny the claim of the petitioner undertaken in the emergency. It is not the case of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is not supported by the hospital record. The employer of the petitioner is in obligation to ensure the timely medical assistance. Admittedly, the petitioner is 69 years of age. The claim for medical reimbursement ought not to be dismissed merely because the claimant underwent treatment in a non-empanelled. In such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into play, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on her medical record, in order to save her life, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is man life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of empanelment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, amounts admitted in two hospitals which were not empanelled. The hospital records’ were duly perused by the Civil Surgeon, Panipat and has given opinion that the case of emergency whether the claimant had actually undertaken treatment in an emergent condition as advised by the doctor to preserve the life of the claimant. The authorities ny the claim of the petitioner undertaken in the emergency. It is not the case of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is not supported by the hospital record. The employer of the nce. The claim for medical reimbursement ought not to be dismissed empanelled. In y, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on her medical record, in order to save her life, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is man life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the n need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of empanelment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does amounts PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh vs. State of Punjab an through Justice M.M. Punchhi, the following was opined: “8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division Bench of the Punjab C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H). petitioner to medic save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this judgments of the High case are : xxx 10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in 5 to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh vs. State of Punjab and others(1996) 2 SCC 336 through Justice M.M. Punchhi, the following was opined: 8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H). decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ petitioner to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this judgments of the High Court following the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's case are : (1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 decided on 10.5.95 titled Kohli v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H) (2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, d Mohan Duggal v. State of Punjab and others (DB) (3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decided on 4.9.94 titled Prem Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others; (4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. State of Punjab etc. (SB); (5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. State of Punjab and others xxx It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit (1996) 2 SCC 336,whereby, speaking through Justice M.M. Punchhi, the following was opined: 8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ al reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this Court on 2.2.1994. The other following the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's (1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 decided on 10.5.95 titled K.L. Kohli v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H); C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi Mohan Duggal v. State of Punjab and others (DB) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decided on 4.9.94 titled Gill v. State of Punjab and others; 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. State of Punjab etc. (SB); and 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. State of Punjab and others (SB) xxx xxx It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments Surjit whereby, speaking 8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division at Chandigarh in Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ al reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the on 2.2.1994. The other following the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's K.L. ecided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decided on 4.9.94 titled 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report ), Punjab Law Reporter (SB) It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Article precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self criminal law 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare meetings difficult to happen. The in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the a claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. the contrary 10. as remained on ventilator save her life, as also depicted by essentiality and emergency 11. No.4/concerned authority medical reimbursement for the medical procedure undergone by her within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 12. disposed of. August 13, 2025 P.C 6 cle 21 of the Constitution of India precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self defen criminal law… 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. contrary…” In the matter at hand, the petitioner underwent surgery as remained on ventilator, which was necessary at that moment in order to life, as also depicted by her medical record. Therefore, the test of essentiality and emergency stands satisfied. Accordingly, the present petition is No.4/concerned authority is directed to medical reimbursement for the medical procedure undergone by her within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : India , fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and preservation has a species in the right of self defence in 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare-facedly, makes its appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend ppellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to In the matter at hand, the petitioner underwent surgery as well necessary at that moment in order to medical record. Therefore, the test of satisfied. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. The respondent is directed to make payment of differential medical reimbursement for the medical procedure undergone by her within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and ce in 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical facedly, makes its appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend ppellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his We think to as well necessary at that moment in order to medical record. Therefore, the test of . The respondent payment of differential medical reimbursement for the medical procedure undergone by her within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document