Smt. Chitra Aggarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9334/2026 & CM APPL. 43691/2026

¶4

SMT. CHITRA AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Prerna Dhingra, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anant Prakash, Standing Counsel for MCD with Ms. Varsha Arya, Mr. Pratham Saini, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 20.07.2026

¶12

The Petitioner, a retired Nursery Teacher of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi,¹ seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to reimburse her medical expenses amounting to ₹4,60,587/incurred towards her knee replacement surgery, together with applicable interest thereon.

¶13

The Petitioner submits that after obtaining the requisite approval, she underwent knee replacement surgery at BLK Super Speciality Hospital and incurred medical expenses of ₹4,60,587/-. However, despite repeated representations and legal notices, the said amount has not been reimbursed.

¶14

The record reveals that the Petitioner had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal² by way of O.A. No. 2340/2023 seeking,

¶15

1 “MCD”

¶16

2 “CAT/the Tribunal”

¶17

W.P.(C) 9334/2026 Page 1 of 5

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:36:34

¶20

inter alia , release of her retiral dues as well as reimbursement of the aforesaid medical expenses. By order dated 16^th August, 2023, the Tribunal recorded that during the course of hearing, counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that the Petitioner would be satisfied, at that stage, if the pending representations and legal notice were directed to be decided by the competent authority. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted liberty to the Petitioner to submit a supplementary/additional representation setting out her claims and directed the competent authority to take an appropriate decision thereon by a reasoned order. The Tribunal expressly clarified that nothing contained in the said order was to be construed as a comment on the merits of the Petitioner’s claim.

¶21

Thereafter, alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Petitioner initiated Contempt Petition No. 539/2024 before CAT. By order dated 16^th December, 2024, the Tribunal recorded that various retiral benefits, including leave encashment, GPF, pension commutation, DCRG, 3^rd MACP and 7^th CPC arrears, had since been released. Observing that nothing survived in the contempt proceedings, the Tribunal closed the same while granting liberty to the Petitioner to make her grievance in case any claim survived.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that notwithstanding the aforesaid proceedings, the claim towards medical reimbursement continues to remain unpaid. The Petitioner, therefore, caused a legal notice dated 04^th December, 2025 to be issued to the Respondent calling upon it to release the medical reimbursement amount together with interest.

¶23

At the outset, this Court has queried counsel for the Petitioner as to the maintainability of the present petition, particularly in light of the earlier

¶24

W.P.(C) 9334/2026 Page 2 of 5

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:36:34

¶27

proceedings before the CAT.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the claim for medical reimbursement had also been raised before CAT, the Respondents had objected to its maintainability on the ground that medical reimbursement did not constitute retiral dues. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition is maintainable as no efficacious remedy survives before the Tribunal.

¶29

Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the present petition is maintainable merely because the Respondents had raised an objection before the Tribunal regarding the maintainability of the claim for medical reimbursement. 9. A perusal of the order dated 16^th August, 2023 shows that although such an objection was indeed raised by the Respondents, the Tribunal neither accepted the said objection nor held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner’s claim. The Original Application came to be disposed of in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner seeking consideration of her pending representations. The Tribunal expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner’s claim.

¶30

Similarly, while disposing of the contempt proceedings, the Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the Petitioner’s entitlement to medical reimbursement or hold that such claim could not be entertained by it. The Tribunal merely recorded compliance with respect to the retiral dues and observed that the Petitioner would be at liberty to pursue any surviving grievance.

¶31

Thus, neither was the objection regarding maintainability accepted by the Tribunal nor was the Petitioner’s claim for medical reimbursement

¶32

W.P.(C) 9334/2026 Page 3 of 5

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:36:34

¶35

adjudicated upon. The mere fact that such an objection was raised by the Respondents before the Tribunal cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the statutory remedy before the Tribunal stood exhausted or has become unavailable to the Petitioner.

¶36

In these circumstances, if the Petitioner’s grievance regarding medical reimbursement survives, the appropriate course would be to pursue the remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The present writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. 13. At this stage, counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner’s legal notice dated 04^th December, 2025 was replied to by communication dated 18^th December, 2025 issued by the Office of the Chief Administrative Medical Officer, wherein it was specifically intimated that no claim for medical reimbursement had been received in the name of the Petitioner by the concerned office and, therefore, the question of processing the same did not arise. Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid communication was never received by the Petitioner.

¶37

Be that as it may, in view of the stand taken by the Respondent that no claim for medical reimbursement has been received by the competent authority, it is directed that the Petitioner shall submit a complete claim for medical reimbursement, together with all documents in support thereof, before the competent authority within a period of four weeks from today. 15. Upon receipt thereof, the competent authority shall consider the Petitioner’s claim in accordance with the applicable rules and pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. In the event the Petitioner’s claim is found admissible, the admissible amount shall

¶38

W.P.(C) 9334/2026 Page 4 of 5

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:36:34

¶41

be released to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the said decision.

¶42

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner’s claim or her entitlement to medical reimbursement. In the event the Petitioner remains aggrieved by the decision taken on her claim, it shall be open to her to avail such remedies as may be available in law before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶43

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶44

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶45

JULY 20, 2026/ab

¶46

W.P.(C) 9334/2026 Page 5 of 5

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:36:34

Smt. Chitra Aggarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chitra Aggarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Ishwer Singh & Anr.

Sanyam Goyal Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Malhotra & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Sarv Priya Mahajan Co. Op Group Housing Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Phool Chand & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

M/S Aj Owners Vs Central Vigilance Commission & Ors.

Dinesh Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ram Veer Singh Vs Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd.

Smt. Poonam Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Anuradha Khanna Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ruchi Sharma Vs Ss Mota Singh Model Sr Sec School and Ors.

Ms. Aqsa Azeem Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Hairsh Kumar Gulati Vs . Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (Dusib) & Anr.