Disposed
Shri Niwas Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCWP/1862/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP. No. 1862 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.2.2010.
Shri Niwas Sharma --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.
Present:Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***
PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)
The petitioner is working as Sanskrit Lecturer. Wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Kailash Sharma fell ill and was accordingly admitted to Grecian Super Speciality Hospital, Mohali, where she was admitted on 11.4.2008 and was operated upon on 15.4.2008. She remained hospitalized for 10 days. A copy of the medical certificate is placed on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioner incurred expenses of Rs. 2, 56, 415/- for the treatment of his wife, who remained hospitalized from 11.4.2008 to 21.4.2008, 28.4.2009 to 2.5.2008 and lastly from 13.5.2008 to 19.5.2008. The certificates in this regard have been placed on record as Annexures P-2 to P-4. The petitioner submitted the bills for medical reimbursement for the treatment of his wife. He was asked to furnish the emergency certificate. Respondents again sought certain clarifications. The grievance of the petitioner is that the claim of medical reimbursement has not been paid till date.
In the reply filed, it is stated that the respondents never rejected the claim of the petitioner, though, petitioner was asked to remove the
CWP. No. 1862 of 2009
-2-
objections and then re-submit his claim so that the sanctioned amount could be issued as per the Govt. instructions. Respondents have also referred to a letter dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure R-1).
In view of the reply, the claim of the petitioner has not been rejected by respondents but at the same time the claim has not been granted so far.
In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement in accordance with the norms for similar treatment in AIIMS, New Delhi/P.G.I, Chandigarh.
Let the admissible amount be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest @ 6%.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
18.2.2010. lucky
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the high court can direct the respondents to settle a pending medical reimbursement claim within a specific framework.
Niwas Sharma
State of Haryana
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court