JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing/setting-aside the impugned orders dated 07.08.2023 and 18.11.2024 (Annexures P-3 and P-5, respectively) passed by respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing respondent No.2 to release the amount of Rs.14,20,550/- as reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment of his wife, along with 18% interest from the date of submission of bills till actual payments.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner retired from HAFED on 31.07.2014 as Deputy General Manager (Personal and Admin). His wife had been suffering from a chronic renal failure (kidney disease) since the year 2000 and she was undergoing regular treatment. By 2019, the medical reimbursement limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs had already been utilized by the petitioner for her ongoing treatment. Subsequently, she required hospitalization in the year 2022 and 2023, resulting in total medical expenses of Rs.14,20,550/-, and unfortunately, she passed away in December, 2023. The petitioner submitted copies of the medical bills along with the death certificate dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him. Despite submitting his claim for reimbursement on 24.07.2023 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.2/HAFED rejected the same on 07.08.2023 (Annexure P-3), and a fresh representation dated 10.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner, was again rejected on 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Board of Administrators of HAFED, in its 370^th meeting held on 23.11.2020 (Annexure P-10), approved the extension of medical reimbursement benefits to retired employees. This policy was subsequently put into effect when the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, amended Rule 16(8) of the HAFED Common Cadre Rules, 1988, in 2025, and HAFED issued a circular on 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-15) notifying the amended rule. In view of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in denying medical reimbursement to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal since the treatment involved was a life-saving kidney transplant, diabetes, hypertension, recurrent strokes (Weakness in muscles), recurrent urinary tract infection, chronic graft (transplant) dysfunction, peripheral vascular disease and thyroid disease, etc.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the procedure was a planned surgery for a chronic condition and thus, was not a spontaneous emergency. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the petitioner’s claim for medical reimbursement is not admissible as per the rules in force at the relevant time as no provision existed for reimbursement to retired employees when the medical expenses were above Rs.2.00 lacs incurred in the year 2022–2023. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that HAFED acted strictly in accordance with the rules which were then in force and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner was neither arbitrary nor unjustified.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. The core issue for consideration before this Court is whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement for his wife’s renal transplant and follow-up treatment, which was undertaken at an empanelled hospital and was medically necessary to preserve life.

6. The petitioner’s wife suffered from chronic renal failure and multiple other life-threatening diseases. The renal transplant and associated treatment were not elective but essential and life-saving. Denial of reimbursement on mere procedural or technical grounds cannot be justified, par