CWP-20347 IN TH 222 Satyendra Ku Punjab State CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution certiorari fo P-5) passed b petitioner has mandamus Rs.5,66,350.5 2. of the petitio 1 0347-2017(O&M) N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CW Date dra Kumar Sinha (since deceased) thro VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the Mr. Haneesh Kumar Advocate and Mr. Devaki Anand Sullar, A **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has bee tution of India with a prayer for issu for quashing the impugned orde assed by respondent No.2, whereby m er has been declined. Further for issu directing the respondents to re 6,350.51 along with interest up to date Learned counsel for the petition petitioner fell seriously ill on 15.08.2 NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-20347-2017(O&M) Date of Decision: October 08, 2025 d) through his legal heirs .....Petitioner SUS ed and another .....Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. ocate for Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate llar, Advocate for the respondents. as been filed under Article 226 of the r issuance of a writ in the nature of order dated 01.06.2017 (Annexure reby medical reimbursement claim of or issuance of a writ in the nature of to reimburse the medical claim of o date as per Rules. etitioner inter alia contends that wife 15.08.2015 and at that point of time, , 2025 itioner ondents ocate of the ure of exure im of ure of im of wife time, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 petitioner wa admitted in R At the time Rs.2,00,000/ situation, son sought help o the tune of admission. T 16.08.2015 t (Cancer). Th the treatment deposited by submitted the dated 01.10.2 also submitte Annexure P and sought cl of petitioner reimburseme the objection each and eve was availed b who was in 2 0347-2017(O&M) er was out of station, due to which s ed in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Ro time of admission of wife of petitio 0,000/- was required to be deposited n, son of the petitioner who was em help of his employer and the compan ne of Rs.2,00,000/- to the concern ion. The wife of petitioner remaine 015 to 14.09.2015 and received t r). The petitioner incurred a total exp atment of his wife and out of this amo ted by the employer of son of petit ted the claim for the remaining amou 1.10.2015. Petitioner has not only fur bmitted the requisite certificate issue ure P-1(collectively). Thereafter, resp ught clarification on the ground if the itioner has been taken by his son rsement from the respondent-Corpora jection raised filed a detailed reply d nd every aspect and also clarified th ed by son of the petitioner in order as in dire need of medical assista hich son of petitioner got his mother ute, Rohni, New Delhi on 16.08.2015. petitioner in hospital, an amount of osited as admission fees. In such a was employed in a private company ompany directly deposited amount to oncerned hospital to facilitate the emained admitted in hospital w.e.f. ived treatment for chondrosarcoma tal expenditure of Rs.7,66,350.51 on is amount, Rs.2,00,000/- was already f petitioner. As such, the petitioner amount of Rs.5,66,350.51 vide letter ly furnished the medical bills but has e issued by the cancer institute vide r, respondent No.2 raised an objection if the claim for the treatment of wife son how the petitioner can claim orporation. Petitioner in response to eply dated 27.07.2016 by explaining ied that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/ order to preserve the life his mother assistance and it was the case of other .2015. unt of uch a pany unt to e the w.e.f. rcoma 51 on lready tioner letter ut has e vide ection f wife claim nse to aining ,000/- other se of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 emergency. after a month petitioner wa Learned coun Corporation a on the ground fails to fall instructions ( 3. filed the copy which is orde at the approp 4. submits that Scheme from claim reimbu 5. record with th 6. relying upon the same wou regarding ex 3 0347-2017(O&M) ncy. Unfortunately the wife of petitio month from the date of discharge. He er was residing with the petitioner an d counsel further refers to written sta ation and submits that claim of the pe ground that wife of petitioner cannot b o fall under the definition of dep tions (Annexure R-1). Learned counsel appearing on e copy of affidavit Sh. Salim Moham is ordered to be taken on record. Regis ppropriate place. Per contra, learned counsel f s that petitioner has taken the bene e from the private company through h eimbursement and prays for dismissal I have heard learned counsel f with their able assistance. It transpires that the claim of upon the instructions dated 06.08.201 e would indicate that Government of extension of increasing of incom petitioner succumbed to cancer only e. He further submits that wife of the oner and totally dependent upon him. en statement filed by the respondent the petitioner has been declined onl annot be considered dependant, as she of dependent by relying upon the g on behalf of the respondents has ohammad along with Annexure R-4, . Registry is directed to place the same nsel for the respondent-Corporation benefit of the Corporate Coverage ugh his son and cannot be allowed to missal of the present petition. nsel for the parties and perused the im of the petitioner was rejected by 08.2014 (Annexure R-1). A perusal of ent of Punjab has issued instructions income condition for dependents of r only of the him. ndent- d only as she n the ts has 4, same ration erage ed to ed the ed by sal of ctions nts of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 family for m Punjab Gove 7. on petitioner Admittedly, Rs.7,66,350.5 by son of pe mother in an to be depos Rs.2,00,000/ the claim of raised by resp to deny the ad 8. was the case claim of the h such cases, t 4 0347-2017(O&M) for medical reimbursement to emplo Government, which may be read as un 2&.. <Keeping in view the d and public intent in mind the G of standing Committee, thereof, an income tax payee, be treate medical reimbursement but if reimbursed or claimed medica then he will not be treated as de There is no dispute that the wife titioner at the time of her treatme edly, a total expenditure incurred 6,350.51 out of which an amount of Rs of petitioner from his employer in o in an emergency situation. The aforem deposited at the time of admission 0,000/- which got deposited by the son of Rs.5,66,350.51 submitted by th by respondent-Corporation is too hype the admissible claim of the petitioner The condition of the wife of th e case of emergency. It is not the ca f the husband of petitioner is not supp ases, the test of essentiality and emer employees/officers and pensioners of d as under:- he demand of different association he Govt. has decided in the meeting reof, a member of family who is not eated as dependent for purpose of t if such member has got medical ical claim from somewhere else, s dependent.=. he wife of petitioner was a dependent eatment at the concerned hospital. rred on the wife of petitioner was t of Rs.2,00,000/- have been arranged er in order to preserve the life of his aforementioned amount was required ission in hospital. The amount of son9s employer, is not included in by the petitioner. As such, objection hyper-technical and cannot be used itioner. of the petitioner was serious and it the case of the respondents that the ot supported by the hospital record. In d emergency comes into play, which ers of tion ting not e of ical else, ndent spital. r was anged of his quired nt of ded in ection e used and it at the In which PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 dictates that emergency, reimburseme human life Constitution priority. 9. availability o the citizens to the State doe therefore, am Article 21 of on the judgm Court in Su 336,whereby opined: <8. Th surger Bench C.W.P throug Secreta (P&H) petitio save h 5 0347-2017(O&M) s that if the medical procedure was un ncy, on the advice of a doctor b rsement for the same must be made. life instinctive, but it also forms tution of India, and therefore, it sh Moreover, the State bears a ility of timely medical care to those in zens to refrain from availing timely ca te does not satisfy the criteria of fa re, amounts to a violation of the fu 21 of the Constitution of India. Relia judgments rendered by a two Judge Surjit Singh vs. State of Punj ereby, speaking through Justice M.M . The policy, providing recognitio rgery in the Escorts, specifically cam nch of the Punjab and Haryana W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as Sa rough Secretary, Health and Fa cretariat, Chandigarh and o &H). decided on 6.10.1993, where titioner to medical reimbursement w ve his life he had got himself operat was undergone by the claimant in an ctor based on medical record, the made. Not only is the preservation of forms a part of Article 21 of the , it shall always retain the highest ears an obligation to ensure the ose in need. As such, it cannot expect ely care. Such conduct on the part of of fairness and reasonableness and the fundamental rights enshrined in . Reliance in this regard can be placed Judge bench of the Hon9ble Supreme Punjab and others(1996) 2 SCC e M.M. Punchhi, the following wa nition for treatment of open heart came to be examined by a Division ana High Court at Chandigarh in Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab Family Welfare Punjab, Civil others, 1994(1) SCT 552 herein the claim of the then writ ent was accepted when in order to erated upon in the Escorts, and the in an , the ion of f the ighest e the ct art of s and ed in laced preme SCC g was eart sion h in njab ivil 552 writ r to the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 plea of was re said d judgme case ar xxx 10. It i one's l Article precio right t crimin 11. Th preser Board, meetin in queu to an brough that th 6 0347-2017(O&M) ea of the State that he could be paid s rejected. Special Leave Petition id decision was dismissed by this dgments of the High Court following se are : (1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 Kohli v. State of Punjab and oth (2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, de Mohan Duggal v. State of Punja (3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 199 Prem Singh Gill v. State of Punj (4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. Sta (5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. S xxx . It is otherwise important to bear i e's life is the necessary concomitant ticle 21 of the Constitution of India ecious and inviolable. The importan ht to self-preservation has a specie iminal law& . The appellant therefore had th eservation. He did not have to stan ard, the manning and assembling o eetings difficult to happen. The appe queue in the Government hospital o an alternate hospital as per poli ought the Escorts on the recognised at the appellant could in no event ha paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS ion No. 22024 of 1995 against the this Court on 2.2.1994. The other wing the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's 992 decided on 10.5.95 titled K.L. others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H); 5, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi unjab and others (DB) 1994 decided on 4.9.94 titled Punjab and others; ) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report . State of Punjab etc. (SB); and ) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter t v. State of Punjab and others (SB) xxx xxx ar in mind that self preservation of itant of the right to life enshrined in dia , fundamental in nature, sacred, rtance and validity of the duty and ecies in the right of self defence in d the right to take steps in self stand in queue before the Medical ng of which, bare-facedly, makes its appellant also did not have to stand tal of AIIMS and could go elsewhere policy. When the State itself has ised list, it is futile for it to contend nt have gone to the Escorts and his IMS t the ther all's K.L. Ravi itled port rter SB) n of d in red, and e in self ical s its tand here has tend his PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 claim the con 10. upon the med respondents a medical pro Rs.5,66,350/ the present w receiving a ce 11. disposed of. October 08 P.C 7 0347-2017(O&M) aim cannot on that basis be allowe contrary&= It is not a case that the claim o he medical record. Accordingly, the p dents are directed to make payment of l procedure undergone by wife o 6,350/- along with 6% interest to be ca sent writ petition, within a period of ng a certified copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. er 08, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : lowed, on suppositions. We think to laim of the petitioner was not based , the present petition is allowed. The ent of medical reimbursement for the ife of petitioner to the tune of o be calculated from the date of filing iod of three months from the date of plication(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No k to based . The or the ne of filing of stands RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document