Allowed¶38

Rajesh Garg v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2025CWP/10514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

medical reimbursement; retired employees; pensioners; Rule 27; Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Employees By-laws; Punjab Govt. Rules; PGIMER; knee replacement surgery; certiorari; mandamus; Articles 226/227; Article 14; intelligible differentia; ultra-vires; quashed; interest 6%; A.K. Bhatnagar; Yatinder Kumar Gupta; Krishan Chander; Housing Board Haryana; CWP-10514-2023; Harpreet Singh Brar; 27.10.2025; High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) and direction to the respondents to reimburse the petitioner's medical treatment expenses with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶38

Rajesh Garg Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a retired employee of respondent No.3-Corporation is entitled to medical reimbursement under Rule 27 of the Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Employees By-laws at par with serving employees, such that the order dated 01.02.2023 rejecting his claim should be quashed.

¶20

Court's answer

Rule 27 of the Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Employees By-laws entitles an employee to medical reimbursement as per Punjab Govt. Rules as amended from time to time; nothing in the By-Laws disentitles retired employees, and the expression 'employee' in Rule 27 must be interpreted to include retired employees, who are entitled to medical reimbursement at par with currently serving employees.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The issue being no longer res integra and squarely covered by A.K. Bhatnagar and Yatinder Kumar Gupta (with supporting reference to Krishan Chander), the petition is allowed: the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and the respondents are directed to reimburse the medical treatment expenses with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition, within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-10514-2023 | High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh | Decided 27.10.2025 | Harpreet Singh Brar, J (Oral) | Petition allowed. Rajesh Garg, retired on 31.01.1999 from respondent No.3 (Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation), sought reimbursement of Rs.3,40,855.50/- spent on his wife's knee replacement surgery at PGIMER (admitted 12.05.2025 to 29.05.2025); respondent No.2 rejected the claim by order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) on the ground that Rule 27 of the Corporation's Employees By-laws covers only serving employees. Holding: Rule 27 entitles an 'employee' to medical reimbursement as per Punjab Govt. Rules as amended from time to time; nothing in the By-Laws disentitles retired employees; 'employee' includes retired employees, entitled at par with serving employees. Followed A.K. Bhatnagar (CWP No.7957 of 2016, dec. 27.04.2017) and the Supreme Court in Housing Board Haryana v. Yatinder Kumar Gupta (SLP(C) No.14826 of 2022, dec. 19.09.2022); also relied on LPA No.1865 of 2017 (Housing Board Haryana v. Krishan Chander, dec. 19.05.2022), whose quoted passages hold a similar exclusion of retired employees ultra-vires of Article 14 and strike it down. Impugned order quashed; reimbursement directed with 6% interest from date of filing, payable within six weeks of receipt of certified copy.

¶1

CWP-10514-2023

¶2

�

¶3

262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-10514-2023 Date of decision: 27.10.2025

¶5

RAJESH GARG ....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶9

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. S.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶12

¶13

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J (Oral):

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby the respondents have rejected the claim for medical reimbursement to the petitioner. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to reimburse the amount of Rs.3,40,855.50/- spent by the petitioner on the treatment of his wife which has not been reimbursed till date along with interest @ 18 % per annum.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner had retired on 31.01.1999 after serving the respondent No.3Corporation. The wife of the petitioner had undergone knee replacement surgery on 12.05.2025 at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER). She remained admitted from MONIKA RANI 2025.11.03 12:46 12.05.2025 to 29.05.2025, and a total sum of Rs.3,40,855.50/- was incurred I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-10514-2023 �

¶17

on her treatment. The petitioner submitted the entire medical records and bills to respondent management on 28.07.2015 for reimbursement. However, the respondent No.3 kept the matter pending on the ground that the issue regarding reimbursement of medical allowance of retirees/pensioners is under consideration of the establishment branch, as mentioned in letters dated 28.07.2015 and 24.08.2015 (Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively). The petitioner again sent a reminder to respondent to intimate him about the action taken in the matter to enable him to take further necessary steps. The petitioner, while in service, was getting all facilities like medical reimbursement, LTC, Leave encashment at par with the employees of respondent No.3-Corporation and submits that all employees of the respondent-Corporation are entitled to medical reimbursement as per the Punjab Government Rules as amended from time to time. Further, Rule 27 of the Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Employees By-laws does not create any distinction between a serving employee and retired employees. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.7957 of 2016 , titled as ‘ A.K. Bhatnagar Vs. State of Haryana and others ’, decided on 27.04.2017. Further a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Housing Board Haryana and others Vs. Yatinder Kumar Gupta and others , Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14826 of 2022 decided on 19.09.2022 , has categorically held that retired employees are entitled to medical reimbursement at par with their serving counterparts.

¶18

Per Contra , learned counsel for respondent No.3 Corporation submits that the claim of the petitioner was declined by respondent No.2. MONIKA RANI 2025.11.03 12:46 Learned State counsel refers to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-10514-2023 �

¶20

and submits that only the serving employees of the respondent are entitled to medical reimbursement in terms of Rule 27 of the Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Employees Bylaws. The petitioner, being a retiree, is not entitled to medical reimbursement. The petitioner, after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.1999, became a retiree of the Corporation, and as such, under Rule 27 of the employees By-Laws, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by respondent No.2.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in A.K. Bhatnagar (supra) as well as by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yatinder Kumar Gupta (supra) .

¶22

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in A.K. Bhatnagar (supra) rejected the contention that the expression ‘employees of the Corporation’ refers only to serving employees and excludes retired employees. It was held that there is nothing in the resolution or the relevant provisions to suggest that retired employees of the Corporation are disentitled to the extension of medical facilities at par with serving Government employees. Accordingly, the expression ‘employees of the Corporation’ was interpreted to include retired employees for the purpose of grant of medical benefits. Furthermore, reference in this regard can also be made to the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1865 of 2017 titled ‘ Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula through its Chairman and another Vs. Krishan Chander and others ’ (decision dated 19.05.2022)

¶23

MONIKA RANI2025.11.03 12:46 wherein the Court observed as follows: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-10514-2023

¶25

�

¶26

“13. ... As noticed, the amendment had necessarily been made on 28.01.2020 but has created a different class of retired employees who are not to be given the said benefits whereas the similarly situated serving employees of the Board were given the said benefits. The same is not applicable to the Government employees and therefore, the distinction which has been made to the retired members of the service of the Board is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India as there is no intelligible differentia made out to put them in a different classification. The Board cannot shrug off its responsibility to provide the benefits for its retired employees on account of financial difficulties as the Board has taken the services of the employees during the youthful days and when medical reimbursement is required after retirement on account of aging process which the human being has to undergo, they then are put in a different class and rather when they require the said benefit more than the ones' who are serving. No such distinction could be pointed out that State Government employees who had retired were also liable to be treated likewise.

¶27

14. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the amendment which has been made whereby facility is not admissible to the retired members of the service is ultra-vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be struck down and it is ordered accordingly. The appellant-Board shall continue to grant the same benefits of medical allowance as are being given to the members of the service by the State whether they are retired or serving …” (Emphasis supplied)

¶28

Moreover, a Two-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶29

in Yatinder Kumar Gupta (supra) has observed as follows:

¶30

“ We agree with the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the retired employees of the appellant Board are entitled to medical reimbursement at par with the State government employees and the in-service employees of the Board. The appointment letter of the retired employees is clear that they would be entitled to benefits as applicable to State government servants. As per Clause 7 of the appointment letter, the employees of the Board are governed by the rules applicable to the Haryana government employees. Regulation 13 of the Haryana Housing Board (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Officers and Employees) Regulations, 2006 also states that in respect of pay, leaves and other matters not provided for in the regulations, the employees of the Board shall be governed by the corresponding rules of the State government.

¶31

On the interpretation of the notification dated 28.01.2020, which was issued by the Housing Department, Haryana, we agree with the High Court that the benefit of medical reimbursement is made

¶32

MONIKA RANI 2025.11.03 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CWP-10514-2023

¶34

�

¶35

available to the employees of the Housing Board, Haryana, and therefore to single out the retired employees to deny them this benefit, contrary to the terms of the appointment letter and the 2006 Regulations, would be wrong. Payment of a lump sum amount under the contributory provident fund scheme, was not a one-time payment towards medical reimbursement. In our opinion, medical reimbursement has no link with the contributory provident fund scheme. The respondents are not seeking pension. Contributory provident fund did not subsume medical reimbursement. The High Court was, therefore, justified and correct in issuing the said directions. We hope and trust that the petitioner - Board will give benefits of the judgment to all retirees of the Board.”

¶36

(Emphasis supplied)

¶37

Rule 27 of the Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Employees By-laws states that an “ Employee shall be entitled to Medical Reimbursement as per Punjab Govt. Rules as amended from time to time. ” There is nothing in the By-Laws to suggest that retired employees of the Corporation are disentitled to the benefit of medical reimbursement at par with currently serving employees. Accordingly, the expression ‘employee’ in Rule 27 must be interpreted to include retired employees for the purpose of grant of medical reimbursement.

¶38

In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the amount incurred by the petitioner towards medical treatment, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶40

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No 2. Whether reportable : Yes /No

¶41

27.10.2025

¶42

MONIKA RANI monika 2025.11.03 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajesh Garg v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Garg v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jai Kishan Mittal Vs Hafed and Another

Om Prakash Sihag Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sham Lal through His Lrs Vs State of Punjab and Others

S Sarwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Kushla Devi Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others