CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Surender Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Deepak Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by respondent department, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been only partially allowed and a meagre amount only has been allowed, whereas present case is of emergency admission of son of the petitioner and no deduction in the treatment amount can be there, in the interest of justice. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent-Department. The son of the petitioner has suffered from heart disease on 11.12.2008 and was admitted in hospital as evident from Certificate dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure P-1). Son of the petitioner was discharged on 17.12.2008 as DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 2 of 11 evident from Case Summary (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that for the treatment of his son, petitioner had incurred following expenses: - From Rs. 12.12.2008 to 24.12.2008 2,21,735.99 30.12.2008 to 01.01.2009 10,552 13.01.2009 to 17.01.2009 17,335.39 3. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted his claim for reimbursement vide 3 different claim forms dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure P-3). However, vide letter dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-4), respondent- Department had raised objections on the bills raised by the petitioner to the effect that treatment was not taken in Government hospital; and belated submission of the claim. 4. It is submitted that as the respondents failed to reimburse the petitioner despite repeated requests, petitioner had filed CWP-3880- 2020 titled as Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-13). Thereafter, by way of Representation dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-16), petitioner had approached the Department for full reimbursement. However, vide the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-17), claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel contends that petitioner had duly submitted his claim for reimbursement of medical bills in 2009. The reason cited by the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is patently incorrect as there was no delay on the part of the petitioner. Rather, it is the respondent-Department which is lingering on full reimbursement of DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 3 of 11 his claim on one pretext or the other. The petitioner is made to run from pillar to post for release of balance amount. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State appearing on advance notice, opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that impugned order is a speaking order and suffers from no infirmity. Moreover, petitioner had previously approached this Court by way of CWP-3880-2020 titled as Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, which had been disposed of vide order dated 11.07.2024 to the complete satisfaction of the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be dismissed. 7. No other argument is raised by ld. counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 8. The son of the petitioner is discharged from hospital on 17.12.2008. As per his own case, petitioner had first submitted his claim for medical reimbursement almost one year thereafter only on 04.12.2009 (Annexure P-3). It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the relevant Rules, petitioner was required to submit his claim within six months from date of discharge. Delayed submission of claim is envisaged only in cases where the government employee has expired. That is not so in the present case. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 4 of 11 9. Accordingly, on the said claim dated 4.12.2009 submitted by the petitioner, following objections were raised by the respondent- Department vide letter No. 1449 dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-4): - “On the subject and reference cited above, both the medical bills are returned herewith by writing that the following errors have been found in the bills:- 1. You have presented the medical bill Rs.221735.99, 17635.39 and 10552/- of your son after one year whereas the same be presented within 6 months from treatment, explain your position. 2. No signature of Doctor and counter sign are on Essential Certificate of bill form. 3. Son is dependent upon you, no affidavit of this is given. 4. Why the treatment of son taken in private hospital? 5. You have not got signed of doctor and counter signed on Essential Certificate of your medical bill. It is written to you that after removal of errors send you medical bill so that further action could be taken.” 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said objections were addressed/resolved by the petitioner by providing relevant information vide Affidavit dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P-5) and Affidavit dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure P-6). Affidavit dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P-5) reads as follows: - “I, Surender Sirigh son of Sh. Sher Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (Marketing), Narwana, District Jind do hereby solemnly declare as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 5 of 11 1. That I the deponent have filed this bill first time and earlier the deponent has not filed this bill for reimbursement earlier. 2. That due to loss of some bills of medical bill the delay have been occurred in sending the claim. 3. That due to the absence of doctors all bills could not counter singed on time so the delay has been occurred in sending the bills for claim. 4. That in view of the above my bills may please be reimbursed. Sd/-, Deponent Verification Verified that my above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Sd/-, Deponent” Affidavit dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P-5) reads as follows:- “I, Surender Singh son of Sh. Sher Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (Marketing), Narwana, District Jind do hereby solemnly declare as under:- 1. That Parminder Singh is my son who is unmarried and fully dependent upon me and residing with me. 2. That my above son is not working in any government department. 3. That he has no any other source of income. 4. That on dated 11.12.08 due to breathing problem to my above son was got admitted in Balaji General and Maternity Hospital, Rohtak Road, Jind in emergency. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 6 of 11 5. That my above statement is true and correct. Sd/-, Deponent Verification Verified that my above statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Sd/-, Deponent” 11. Thus, instead of providing documentary proof and information required by the respondent, petitioner only submitted affidavits. Moreover, the reasons given by the petitioner to the effect that there was delay in submitting claim as medical bills were lost, are vague and do not inspire the confidence of this Court. No explanation is given as to why Essential Certificate was not signed by the concerned Doctor, and why it was not countersigned. No evidence was produced to show that his son was dependent upon him. Mere affidavit to this effect is not sufficient. 12. Perusal of the case file further reveals that thereafter, petitioner had made a Representation dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure P-7) and another Representation dated 28.05.2014 (Annexure P-9) for reimbursement, somehow now producing the medical bills. The said representations were rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 17.11.2011; and again, vide letter dated 14.05.2014 (Annexure P-12), thereby informing the petitioner as follows: - DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 7 of 11 “On the subject cited, it is hereby intimated by returning all three original medical bills of son of Shri Surender Singh, Agriculture Development Officer that the reason explained by the officer for non-producing the medical bills on time are not justified. Therefore, Health Department has rejected the proposal sent by this Department. As per the advice of the Health Department, Health Department is only competent to consider the bills presented late due to the reason of death of employee.” 13. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why the medical bills were not originally produced. It is also not explained as to how petitioner procured the bills subsequently at such a belated stage. The present petition deserves to be dismissed on the above grounds itself. 14. Thereafter, the petitioner stayed silent for 6 years; and then filed CWP-3880-2020, on the same cause of action as in the present petition. In the said CWP-3880-2020, vide order dated 28.02.2024, respondents have been directed to file Affidavit giving details regarding the entitlement of the petitioner qua the medical treatment of his son. In compliance thereof, Government had re-examined the matter and approved claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.48,336/- for all the 3 bills submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the said CWP-3880-2020 was disposed of by coordinate Bench, vide order dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-13), which reads as follows: – “1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the letter/orders dated 17.07.2014 and 23.10.2015, vide which DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 8 of 11 the medical reimbursement claim filed by the petitioner was denied. 2. Learned State counsel refers to para 5 of the affidavit of Rajnaryaan Kaushik, Director, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department dated 11.07.2024, which reads thus: "5. That the Administrative Department after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter decided to approve the amount of Rs. 48,336/- to be reimbursed to the petitioner incurred by the petitioner upon treatment of his son, by relaxing the earlier order dated 14.05.2014 vide which the amount of Rs. 48,336/- was rejected by the Administrative Department. Accordingly vide order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure D/1) the Administrative Department has approved an amount of Rs. 48,336/- to be reimbursed to the petitioner." 3. On instructions from Mamta Sharma, Superintendent, she states that the amount as sanctioned, shall be released with a period of 4 weeks. 4. The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of accordingly. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Department, in case, any grievance, still subsists.” 15. The Coordinate Bench has categorically recorded in para 4 of the order dated 11.07.2024 that amount of Rs.48,336/- satisfies the petitioner. Despite categorically recording his satisfaction in the above said order dated 11.7.2024, petitioner has again filed the instant writ petition re-agitating the same claim. On a Court query, learned counsel is unable to give any reason as to why petitioner had not agitated for his entire alleged claim in the previous writ petition itself. The only DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 9 of 11 explanation sought to be given is that vide the order dated 11.7.2024 liberty was also given to the petitioner that in case any grievance survives, he can approach the respondents. 16. Petitioner had then requested the respondents for personal hearing. Vide letter dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-14), petitioner was informed to be present and was given personal hearing on 28.10.2024 by the Director, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, Panchkula. As requested by the petitioner during the personal hearing, petitioner was permitted to submit further documents. Thereafter, petitioner was again granted opportunity of personal hearing on 12.11.2024 as evident from letter dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-15). 17. Even thereafter, petitioner had submitted the instant Representation dated 11.11.2024, wherein he has now prayed as follows:- “Thus, it is requested to you interest may also be paid to me, as the full payment of medical reimbursement is delayed for 15 years and 6 months.” 18. However, the said demand of the petitioner for grant of interest was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-17) on the ground that “The applicant may be informed that there is no instruction of Haryana Government vide which interest is admissible to claimant on delayed payment on Medical Reimbursement." DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 10 of 11 19. Even otherwise, there was no direction by the Coordinate Bench in the order dated 11.07.2024 for grant of interest. Accordingly, claim of the petitioner for interest was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-17) as follows: - “............ The above situation clearly shows that there are no government instructions regarding the payment of interest to the applicant, nor has the Honorable Court passed any order regarding the payment of interest. Nevertheless, the applicant, Mr. Surender Singh, Subject Matter Expert (Retired), was granted a personal hearing on December 30, 2024, before the following signatory. Even during the personal hearing, the applicant did not present any new facts or government instructions that could warrant the payment of interest.” 20. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Even in the previous CWP-3880-2020, petitioner had made no prayer for interest on the delayed payment. 21. Furthermore, a perusal of the above sequence of event makes it clear that not only is the claim of the petitioner hugely delayed; but the same is also not maintainable; and has been repeatedly considered by the concerned authorities and this Court. The petitioner is unable to explain the cause for delay in the first instance. Undisputedly, as per the relevant rules, petitioner is required to submit his claim for treatment of his son within 6 months; whereas claim was submitted after almost one year. No satisfactory or convincing reason has been given by the petitioner till date for failing to do so. From the above facts, DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19809-2026 (O&M) 11 of 11 it is clear that the delay has been caused by the petitioner himself. As such there is no ground made out for grant of interest. 22. Keeping in view the above, present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 23. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 06.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document