SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAMA KANT SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER – Respondent



##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:9)

(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:11)

(cid:12) (cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:24)ti(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:24)

(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:16)

(cid:12) (cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)

(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:28)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:29)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:30)

(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:31)(cid:24)(cid:12) (cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:12)!(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:31)(cid:24) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)

(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:21)"!#

$(cid:17)(cid:21)!(cid:20)!(cid:12)

!(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)

(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:17)!(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:15)"!#

(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:31)(cid:28) (cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:14)%ti&(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:31)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:20)!(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:12)!(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:31)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:13)&

Present: Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana

!(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:31)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:13)&’(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:12)"(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:24)

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:2)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of calculation sheet dated

17.05.2018 (Annexure P29) to the extent his medical reimbursement claim was

₹ ₹

restricted to 1,38,422/2 against the total bill of 3,54,647/2, and for a direction to

the respondents to reimburse the remaining amount of 2,16,225/2 along with

interest.

(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)

2. The petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer from the Irrigation & Water

Resources Department, Government of Haryana. In January 2018, while at Hisar,

he suffered a serious medical emergency and was admitted to Jindal Hospital,

1 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 04:18:33 :::

##PAGE2##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:5)

Hisar, where his condition deteriorated and he went into coma. On medical advice,

he was shifted to Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, on 16.01.2018

and was admitted in the Emergency ICU. He was diagnosed with viral

meningoencephalitis and remained admitted till 25.01.2018. The total expenditure

incurred on his treatment at the said hospital amounted to 3,54,647/2.

3. The petitioner obtained an essentiality certificate from the hospital

and an emergency certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Gurugram, and thereafter

submitted his reimbursement claim along with requisite documents to the

competent authority. The respondents processed the claim in terms of Government

Memo dated 06.05.2005 governing reimbursement policy and sanctioned an

amount of 1,38,422/2 calculated as per PGIMER/AIIMS rates, which was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top