Dismissed¶4

Union of India v. Darshan Singh Sohal

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2025CWP/19343/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-19343-2025 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 14.07.2025 (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma & Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.). Medical claim reimbursement; CGHS registration in nearest city; pensioner retired 31.03.2013; Central Administrative Tribunal Single Member order dated 06.09.2024; Union of India order dated 30.10.2023 set aside; Union of India vs. Mohanlal Gupta 2018 (1) SCT 686; Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India (2018) 5 Scale 551; writ petition dismissed; compliance within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; the Tribunal's direction to the Union of India to reimburse the original applicant's medical claim stands, with compliance to be made within two months. ¶4

Union of India Vs Darshan Singh Sohal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

126 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

CWP- 1 9343-2025 (O&M) Date o f Decision: 14.07.2025

¶3

Union of India and another …Petitioners

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Darshan Sing h Sohal and another …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶7

Present: M r. Piyush Khanna, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners. ***

¶8

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶9

T he challenge is to the order dated 06.09.2024, passed by th e learned Singl e Member of the Central Admi n istrative Tribunal, whereby th e Union of In d ia has been directed to reim b urse the medical claim of th e original applicant within two months and ha s also set aside the order passe d by the Union of India dated 30.10.2023.

¶10

L earned counsel submits that t h e claim was not admissible a s the responde n t No.1 had not been registered i n the nearest CGHS city. 3. W e notice that the Tribunal ha s found that the applicant stoo d retired from government service on 3 1 .03.2013. The provisions o f registration i n another city could not be app l icable at the relevant time. Th e learned Trib u nal has relied on the judgment p assed by this Court in the cas e of Union of India vs. Mohanlal Gupta 2018 (1) SCT 686 as well as th e

¶11

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in th e case of Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, (2018) 5 Scale 551.

¶12

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.15 09:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶13

CWP-19343-2025 (O&M) [2]

¶14

In view thereto, we do not find any reason to differ from the order already passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Compliance shall now be made within two months henceforth.

¶15

All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.

¶16

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶17

	(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE
14.07.2025
rajesh
	1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
	2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

¶18

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.15 09:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Union of India v. Darshan Singh Sohal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Darshan Singh Sohal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others Vs Kuldeep Singh and Others

Jagdish Kumar Raheja Vs Suman Rani

Sunita Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Luxmi Devi and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sivaganesh Vs Union of India and Others

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ramehar Singh and Anr.