$~107 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1197/2026 SUKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Gaind, Mr. Ajay Singh Gosain, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Nitasha Gupta, Ms.

Amrita Dhawan, Advocates.

versus EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE COPORATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra Standing Counsel with Mr. Parikshit Singh Bhati and Ms. L D Crasta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 28.01.2026 CM APPL. 5865/2026 (EXEMPTION)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1197/2026

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The petitioner claims to be ensured with the respondent-Corporation and claiming entitlement for the reimbursement of the medical expense under the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948 (hereinafter ‘the Act, 1948’) and the Rules made thereunder.

5. The petitioner points out that before 08.01.2026, the petitioner was recognized as a beneficiary of Super Speciality Treatment. It is on account of the decision taken by the respondent-Corporation on 08.01.2026, his medication for Super Speciality Treatment has been abruptly stopped.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the mother of the petitioner also filed a writ petition bearing no. W. P. (C) 18309/2025. Unfortunately, he along with his mother both were suffering with the serious ailment. The mother has now expired and if the petitioner is not extended the benefit of Super Speciality Treatment, he probably may not survive.

7. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on advance instructions, submits a brief note and relies on an office memorandum bearing number V-14/11/5/2018-Med.I(SST) dated 29.10.2018 to indicate that an insured person must have contributed for 78 days in a 6 months insurable employment to be eligible for Super Speciality Treatment for self, and must have contributed 156 days in a 1 year insurable employment to be eligible for Super Speciality Treatment for family of the insured person.

8. It is the case of Mr. Chandra that the respondent-Corporation coverage to the petitioner expired in the year 2023. Despite, the aforesaid, on account of extended sickness, the petitioner was granted benefit up to 31.12.2025, and even the said date has expired. He, therefore, submits that as of now, the petitioner does not have any legal right to claim the continued medication for Super Speciality Treatment.

9. Issue notice.

10. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation accepts notice. He is directed to take instructions and to file reply, if any, before the next date of hearing.

11. Having considered the serious ailment of the petitioner and the fact that up to 31.12.2025, the petitioner was being extended the benefit of Super Speciality Treatment and if abruptly the treatment is not extended the petitioner may not survive, the Court finds that on humanitarian ground, till the matter is adjudicated, the respondent-Corporation to necessarily provide the required treatment as was being provided before 08.01.2026. The same, however, shall not be treated as precedent.

12. List on 12.03.2026.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 28, 2026 aks/ksr