IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

252 Date of decision: 11.09.2025 1.CWP-28760-2022 (O&M)

Om Prakash Dhingra ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

2.CWP-23119-2025 (O&M)

Om Prakash Dhingra ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Shagun, Advocate for the petitioner in both the cases.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Himanshu Jain, Advocate with Mr. Vishal Satija, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-28760-2022.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-23119-2025.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of CWP Nos.28760 of 2022 and 23119 of 2025, as common questions of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-28760-2022.

2. Prayer in the writ petition (in CWP-28760-2022) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing/setting-aside the letters dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure P-3) and letter No.49139 dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby the claim of reimbursement of medical claim has been rejected by respondent No.2 and 3. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents in general/especially respondents No.2 and 3 to reimburse the medical claim/bills of the petitioner. The same petitioner (in CWP-23119-2025) is seeking quashing of letter dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure P-10) whereby the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical bills of follow-up treatment w.e.f. 21.03.2023 to 27.03.2023 has been rejected and to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to reimburse the medical bills of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired government officer who served as Mandi Supervisor under the Market Committee, Panipat, Haryana, and retired on 30.11.2009. On 05.04.2022, while visiting relatives in Noida, the petitioner experienced severe low backache, trembling in the lower body and difficulty in walking. Quickly seeking medical attention, he was admitted to Kailash Hospital, Noida on 06.04.2022, where he was diagnosed with Lumbar Canal Stenosis and admitted under emergency conditions. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent a surgical procedure (re-exploration and decompression) on 08.04.2022 and remained hospitalized until

20.04.2022. After discharge, the petitioner required continued treatment and follow-up for a few months. The petitioner submitted claims for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred, totaling Rs.9,49,999/-, along with all requisite documents, bills, and affidavits to respondent No.2. Respondents No. 2 and 3, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner on two primary grounds:(i) the treatment was not considered an “emergency” by the Chief Medical Officer, Panipat, and (ii) Kailash Hospital, Noida is not on the panel of government approved hospitals under the Haryana Government’s Medical Attendance Rules. Similarly, subsequent follow-up claims were also denied to the petitioner on similar grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s medical reimbursement claims is arbitrary and violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a retired government employee aged over 70 years, while visiting relatives in Noida, suffered from severe lower backache, neurogenic claudication, and functional immobility, leading to his admission at Kailash Hospital, Noida on 06.04.2022, where he underwent a major spinal surgery on 08.04.2022, specifically, re- exploration of previous fusion and decompression of Lumbar Canal Stenosis and extension of construct from L4 to D11 and D12. The treatment was necessitated by a sudden medical emergency, as shown in the discharge summary (Annexure P-1) and the petitione