Aid from Chief Minister's Relief Fund Cannot Be Arbitrarily Deducted from a Government Employee's Medical Reimbursement Claim: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-11-28

HP High Court Slams 'Extremely Harsh' Deduction from Retired Inspector's Medical Bill, Orders Full Reimbursement

Shimla, HP – In a ruling rooted in compassion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a government order that deducted Rs. 1.25 lakh from the medical reimbursement claim of a retired police inspector. The court, presided over by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, declared the deduction "highly arbitrary, unjust and not sustainable," emphasizing that financial aid from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund cannot be clawed back from an employee's rightful benefits.

The decision came in the case of Pritam Marshal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 4155 of 2025), where a grieving father was penalized for receiving aid years earlier for his son's chronic illness.

Background of the Case: A Father's Decade-Long Battle

The petitioner, Pritam Marshal, a 68-year-old who retired as an Inspector from the Police Department, faced a prolonged personal tragedy. His son was diagnosed with chronic kidney failure in 2005, requiring extensive and expensive medical care, including regular hemodialysis.

In 2012, while still in service and struggling with medical expenses amounting to approximately Rs. 35,000 per month, Mr. Marshal received a sanction of Rs. 1,25,000 from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund to support his son's treatment.

After a long and painful battle with the illness, his son passed away on September 23, 2021. Subsequently, when Mr. Marshal filed for medical reimbursement for other expenses incurred, the department issued an order (dated 22.01.2018) to pay his claim only after deducting the Rs. 1.25 lakh he had received from the CM's Relief Fund nearly a decade prior. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Stance: Mr. Marshal's counsel argued that the deduction was "very very harsh." They contended that the relief fund amount was received in 2012, was spent entirely on his son's treatment, and was separate from the medical reimbursement claims filed later. The petitioner was not seeking a "windfall gain" and had not misused the funds.

State's Justification: The Deputy Advocate General, representing the state, argued that the petitioner's son had crossed the age of 25, making him technically ineligible for reimbursement under standard rules. The reimbursement was approved on "extreme compassionate ground," and the deduction was made to prevent the petitioner from receiving a "double benefit" from both the relief fund and the department.

High Court's Rationale: A Call for Compassion

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, in his judgment, strongly sided with the petitioner, highlighting the need for greater empathy from the department. The court's reasoning was based on several key principles:

• Unconditional Aid: The grant from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was unconditional. The court noted there was no stipulation that the amount would have to be reimbursed or would be deducted from future claims. > "A perusal of Annexure P-2 demonstrates that an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, released by the worthy Chief Minister out of his own Relief Fund, was not with any condition that the same was to be reimbursed or deducted later on upon the happening of any eventuality."

• No Concealment: The petitioner had not hidden his status as a government employee when he applied for the aid. The competent authority was fully aware of his circumstances when sanctioning the amount.

• Separate Fund Source: The court distinguished the source of the funds, stating that the Rs. 1.25 lakh was not paid from the Police Department's budget but from the separate Chief Minister's Relief Fund.

• Lack of Due Process: The impugned order was passed without any inquiry to establish if the petitioner had misused the funds or was attempting to claim double reimbursement for the same expenses.

The court described the petitioner's situation with empathy, acknowledging the emotional and financial toll of his son's decade-long illness. > "this Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case, some more compassion and sympathy has to be shown by the Department."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the communication ordering the deduction. It directed the state to release the full medical reimbursement amount to Mr. Marshal without subtracting the Rs. 1.25 lakh.

This judgment serves as a significant reminder to government departments that discretionary, compassionate aid from sources like the CM's Relief Fund should not be used to penalize employees or curtail their statutory benefits. It reinforces the principle that administrative actions, especially in matters involving personal tragedy, must be just, fair, and humane.