Disposed¶¶13

Jaswant Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Interim order – Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Apr 2026CWP/18822/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PM-JAY; Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana; HIM CARE Scheme; empanelled private hospitals; release of pending bills; ceiling limit exceeded; 90:10 Centre-State sharing; Rs. 49.71 crore Union liability; Rs. 5.52 crore State share; Himachal Pradesh; Rashitriya Swasthya Biima Yojna; vigilance inquiry; non-compliance with court order; exemption from appearance; CWP 2080/2026; Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only (matter pending): Central Government Counsel for respondent No.2 to take instructions on ceiling-exceeding expenses for release of dues; State to file complete bill-wise data by the next date; matter listed on 28.04.2026 with respondents No.1 & 3 to remain present in Court. ¶¶13

Jaswant Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Workability of the Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY scheme in Himachal Pradesh, including the 90:10 sharing pattern, the ceiling limit, and the position where expenses incurred exceed the ceiling limit, qua release of the petitioners' pending bills. +1 more

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Direction to learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.2 to take instructions regarding the working of the PM-JAY scheme in cases where expenses incurred exceed the ceiling limit, for releasing the amount due to the petitioners who have provided treatment to beneficiaries and await release of bills.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

Observation that the practice of an officer proceeding on leave before the hearing, without moving an exemption application despite non-compliance with earlier directions, is not expected from a higher-ranking officer; with this observation the matter was left at that stage for the day.obiter¶¶7
Direction to respondents-State to place on record, by the next date, complete data with tabulations pertaining to the petitioners-hospitals/institutions empanelled under the Scheme, covering bills furnished, dates of furnishing/consideration/approval-disapproval, reasons for disapproval, quantum approved, dates and amounts of release, amounts still due, delays beyond stipulated periods, and complaints received with dates and nature.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order — Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — CWP No. 2080/2026 with connected writ petitions, 10.04.2026. Hearing on the workability of the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) scheme in Himachal Pradesh and release of bills of hospitals empanelled under the Scheme/HIM CARE for treatment of beneficiaries. Sharing pattern stated at 90:10 (Union:State); ceiling limit for the Union stated at Rs. 1052/-; total Union liability stated at Rs. 49.71 crore for about 5 lakh registered families; State share stated at Rs. 5.52 crore. Held/directed: (i) learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.2 to take instructions on the working of the scheme where expenses exceed the ceiling limit, for releasing amounts due to petitioners; (ii) respondents-State to place on record complete data and tabulations on empanelled hospitals' bills — dates of furnishing, consideration, approval/disapproval, reasons, quantum approved, releases, dues, and complaints — by the next date. Adverse observation that an officer proceeding on leave before hearing without an exemption application, despite non-compliance with earlier directions, is 'not expected from a higher-ranking officer'. Under HIM CARE, the State's stated position is that a vigilance inquiry of empanelled private hospitals is contemplated. Matter listed for 28.04.2026; respondents No.1 & 3 to remain present.

¶1

M/s Maatri Medicity & Orthocare Hospital Vs. State & Ors. a/w connected matters

¶2

CWP Nos. 2080/2026 a/w CWP Nos. 2081/2026, 16930, 16939, 16965, 16966, 20980, 8820, 15422, 17246,17248, 17249 12248, 12249, 17381, 17401, 17431, 16831, 17160, & 19209, 19210/2025, 2484, 2894 & 2941/2026

¶3

10.04.2026 Present: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in all petitions except CWP No. 19209 & 19210/2025 and CWP No. 2484/2026.

¶4

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 3 & 4 in all the matters.

¶5

Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Mr. Janak Raj and Mr. Anshul Attri, Central Government Counsel, for the respective respondents in the respective petitions.

¶6

Respondent No.4-Mr. Suneel Sharma, Special Secretary (Health)-cum-CEO, Rashitriya Swasthya Biima Yojna, present in person

¶7

A detailed order was passed in the matter on the previous date. Respondents–State have not complied with the said order. Respondent No.1 & 3 are not even present in the Court. Learned Advocate General apprises that respondent No.1–Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh proceeded on leave yesterday, i.e., 09.04.2026, and will remain on leave till 18.04.2026. This practice of proceeding on leave before the hearing of the case, without even moving an application for exemption from appearance when directions in the order have not been complied with, is not expected from

¶8

a higher-ranking officer. With this observation, the matter is left at this stage for today’s hearing.

¶9

Respondent No.3 is also statedly away on election duty, however, the officer currently holding charge of respondent No.4 has attended the hearing.

¶10

The matter has been heard at some length. Some arguments have been advanced on both sides with respect to the workability of the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) Scheme in the respondents–State. The sharing pattern ratio for implementation of this scheme is 90:10 between the Union of India and the State Government. The ceiling limit for the Union of India is stated to be fixed @ Rs. 1052/- or in other words, for about 5 lakh families of State of Himachal Pradesh, statedly registered on the Government of India portal under this scheme, the total liability of the Union of India works out to Rs. 49.71 crore, and Rs. 5.52 crore as the State share towards the remaining 10%. This being a Government of India scheme, let learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.2 to take instructions regarding the working of this scheme in cases where the expenses incurred in the scheme exceed the ceiling limit, for releasing the amount due to the petitioners, who have statedly provided treatment to the beneficiaries of the scheme and are awaiting for release of their bills.

¶11

Under the HIM CARE Scheme, the only submission made by the learned Advocate General is that a vigilance inquiry of empanelled private hospitals under the HIM CARE Scheme has been contemplated by the State Government.

¶12

Before proceedings further in the matter, respondents–State are directed to place on record complete data with details including tabulations pertaining to the petitioners-the hospitals/institutions empanelled under the Scheme including facts & figures regarding the bills furnished by the petitioners, dates when furnished; dates of their consideration; dates of approval/disapproval of bills; reasons for disapproval; quantum of approved bills; dates of release of amount under approved bills; amount still due for release under approved bills; reasons as to why the bills, if any, have not been considered/approved within the period stipulated under the Scheme; complaints, if any, received by the State pertaining to the bills of the empanelled hospitals, date of receipt of complaints and nature thereof, on the next date.

¶13

List on 28.04.2026 , when respondent No.1 & 3 shall also remain present in the Court for assistance.

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶15

10^th April, 2026 (Rohit)

Jaswant Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Chanika Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Singh Vs the UOI and Others

Rita Devi Vs Amarjeet K Sharma

Sachinder Dutt Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Rajesh Nanda Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Sher Singh Vs UOI and Others