Dalavi Vasant Ananda Vs Union of India — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dalavi Vasant Ananda Vs Union of India — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents No. 1 to 7 to make payment of the medical expenses incurred in the petitioner's treatment, preferably within 30 days; liberty reserved to them to pursue legal remedies against SECL if liability is disputed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities are bound, by a writ of mandamus, to reimburse the petitioner's medical treatment bills (Annexure P/5). +1 more

Court's answer

Respondents No. 1 to 7 are directed to pay the petitioner's medical expenses preferably within 30 days; if any dispute remains as to liability, they are at liberty to avail remedies available in law against SECL.

Ratio / Principle

At the date of the surgeries there is no document to show that the petitioner was temporarily deployed with SECL; hence the contention that SECL alone is liable to pay the medical expenses cannot be accepted.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is admittedly an employee of respondents No. 1 to 7; it is their primary liability to make payment of the medical expenses incurred in his treatment, and any amount paid by the SECL authorities does not absolve CISF's liability.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Medical reimbursement - CISF Constable temporarily deployed with client organisation (SECL) - Primary liability of employer. The petitioner, a CISF Constable (GD) appointed in 2020 under respondents No. 1 to 7, was temporarily deployed with SECL, Bilaspur and thereafter sent on duty to Jammu & Kashmir vide order dated 30.06.2020. He suffered a heart ailment and underwent surgery on 05.08.2020 at Medical College, Jammu & Kashmir (incurring Rs. 75,874/-), and again on 07.09.2020 at Sunrise Hospital, Kolhapur (spending Rs. 2,31,298/-), claiming total reimbursement of Rs. 3,15,149/-. Owing to a MOU between CISF and SECL, the claim was routed to SECL, which paid only Rs. 75,654/- vide cheque dated 08.04.2022; the balance was disputed between CISF and SECL. Held: there was no document showing that, on the dates of the surgeries, the petitioner was temporarily deployed with SECL; the petitioner being admittedly an employee of respondents No. 1 to 7, it is their primary liability to pay the medical expenses, and any payment made by SECL does not absolve CISF of that liability. Petition disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 to 7 to make payment preferably within 30 days, with liberty to avail available remedies against SECL if liability is disputed. (By Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

1

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.23 16:22:11 +0530

CGHC010388652022 2026:CGHC:31322

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 8947 of 2022

Dalavi Vasant Ananda S/o Vasant Ananda Aged About 49 Years R/o A/ P. Isupurli, Tal. Karveer, District Kolhapur Maharashtra

... Petitioner

versus

Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Department, New Delhi

Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Unit S E C L, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Kirandul, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

Assistant Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Kirandul District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Unit S E C L, Bilaspur District Bilasapur, Chhattisgarh

Deputy Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Unit S E C L, Bilaspur District Bilasapur, Chhattisgarh

Assistant Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Unit S E C L, Bilaspur District Bilasapur, Chhattisgarh

8. Chief Medical Officer S E C L, Bilaspur District Bilasapur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Union of India/Respondents No. : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, C.G.C. 1 to 7 For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

22.07.2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

2

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to reimburse the bills, marked here as Annexure P/5.

10.2 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) under the respondents No. 1 to 7, some times in the year 2020. The petitioner was deployed with SECL, Bilaspur and thereafter, he was sent on duty to the State of Jammu & Kashmir vide order dated 30.06.2020. The petitioner complained heart problem on 05.08.2020 and he was taken to Medical College, Jammu & Kashmir, where he was operated for heart blockage and he incurred Rs. 75,874/-. The petitioner was advised complete rest for 30 days. He was again operated at Sunrise Hospital, Kolhapur on 07.09.2020 and he was discharged on 10.09.2020. In said treatment, he spent a sum of Rs. 2,31,298/-. The petitioner moved an application for medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 3,15,149/-. The claim of the petitioner was forwarded to the SECL as there exists a memorandum of understanding (MOU) entered into between the parties. A sum of Rs. 75,654/- was reimbursed vide cheque dated 08.04.2022. With regard to rest of amount there is dispute between CISF and SECL.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an employee of CISF and he was temporarily deployed for short period with SECL Headquarter, but subsequently, he was sent on duty to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, where he complained certain medical problems. He would argue that the petitioner underwent surgery twice and spent a sum of

3

Rs. 3,15,149/- in treatment, and therefore, he is entitled for sum spent in medical treatment. He would contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to make payment.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 7 would contend that there exists a MOU between the SECL and CISF and according to said document, SECL is under obligation to make payment of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner in treatment.

Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 8 would refer Clause 20, 25 and 26 of MOU entered into between the CISF and SECL and submit that during course of temporarily deployment, the Client Organization shall provide medical facilities to the CISF personnel and their families strictly at par with their own employees. He would contend that the petitioner was sent on duty to the State of Jammu & Kashmir and when the petitioner underwent surgeries, he was working in the State of Jammu & Kashmir under the respondents No. 1 to 7, therefore, liability cannot be fastened with the SECL.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

Admittedly, prior to 30.06.2020, the petitioner was temporarily deployed with the SECL Headquarter, and thereafter, he was sent to State of Jammu & Kashmir. His first surgery was done on 05.08.2020 in the Medical College situate at State of Jammu & Kashmir, and subsequently, he underwent one surgery at Sunrise Hospital, Kolhapur, There is no document to infer that on said date the petitioner was temporarily deployed with the SECL authorities.

4

Therefore, the contention made by Mr. Abhishek Banjare cannot be accepted.

Admittedly, the petitioner is employee of respondents No. 1 to 7, therefore, it is their primary liability to make payment of medical expenses incurred in treatment. If any amount has been paid by the SECL authorities, it will not absolve the liability of the CISF.

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 7 to make payment of medical expenses incurred in treatment of the petitioner, preferably within a period of 30 days from today. If there is any dispute with regard to liability, the respondents No. 1 to 7 would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law against the SECL.

10. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of .

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

$iddhant