Satish Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Constitutio n of India with a prayer for is s uance of a writ in the nature o f mandamus directing the respondents to m a ke the payment of Rs.3,06,501 / - to the petitioner on account of reimbursem e nt of medical bills, along with a n interest @ 1 8% p.a. from the date of submission of bills till actual payme n t. Further, a p rayer was made for issuance o f a writ in the nature of certiora r i for quashi n g resolution dated 27.12.2012 p assed by the Board of Directo r s of respond e nt No.2-Haryana Agro-Industri e s Corporation Limited circulat e d vide letter d ated 07.01.2013 (Annexure P- 3 ) whereby the extent of medic a l reimburse m ent for retired employees was li m ited to Rs.2 lakh per employe e .

¶17

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

2

¶19

CWP-2994 5 -2024

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that t h e issue invol v ed in the present writ petiti o n is no longer res integra. A n identical is s ue was raised by similarly situ a ted employees in CWP No.7957 of 2016, tit l ed ‘A.K. Bhatnagar Vs. State of Haryana and others’, decid e d on 27.04.2 0 17, wherein it was specially h eld that there is no distincti o n between retired employees and currently serving employees in terms o f resolution d ated 20.09.1972 passed by the B oard of Directors of responden t - Corporatio n . The benefit accrued to th e petitioner at the time of h i s retirement cannot be withdrawn by pass i ng a subsequent resolution. H e further sub m its that the respondent-Corpo r ation even moved LPA No.1401 of 2017 titled Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation Limited Vs. AK Bhatnagar and others , against the same w h ich was dismissed as withdra w n vide order dated 15.10.2019. He also p l aced reliance on the judgme n t rendered b y this Court in RSA-5771 of 2014 titled ‘Haryana Agro Industries Corporation and another Versus J.K. Jain ,’ decided o n 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-9) to support his c a se.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel f o r respondent No.2 was unable t o controvert t he legal position as highlighte d in A.K. Bhatnagar (supra) a n d J.K. Jain (supra) . He assures this Court t h at case of the petitioner will b e considered in terms of judgment passed in A.K. Bhatnagar (supra). 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusi n g the record o f the case, it transpires that ad m ittedly, the petitioner is a retir e d employee o f the respondent-Corporation. T he resolution dated 20.09.19 7 2 passed by t he Board of Directors of respo n dent-Corporation states that t h e

¶22

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

3

¶24

CWP-2994 5 -2024

¶25

employees of the respondent-Corporation w ould be treated at par with t h e employees of the Government of Harya n a for the purpose of availi n g medical fa c ilities. Nowhere has a distinctio n been drawn between employe e s who are c u rrently in service and those w h o have retired. As such, readi n g such divisi o n into the same by introduc i ng resolution dated 27.12.2012 would be against settled law. Pertine n tly, this issue has also be e n conclusivel y decided by this Court in A.K. Bhatnagar (supra), wherein it was held t h at the words- ‘employees of C o rporation’ used in the resoluti o n dated 20.0 9 .1972 includes retired emplo y ees for the purpose of grant o f medical rei m bursement.

¶26

Further still, reference in this regard can also be made to t h e judgment r e ndered by a Division Bench o f this Court in LPA No. 1865 of 2017 titled ‘ Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula through its Chairman and another Vs. Krishan Chander and others’ wherein creating two class e s of employe e s devoid of any intelligible dif f erentia was held to be ultra vir e s of Article 1 4 of the Constitution of India. The same was also upheld by a two-Judge b ench of the Hon’ble Supreme C ourt in Housing Board Haryana and others Vs. Yatinder Kumar Gupta and others, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14826 of 2022 decided on 1 9 .09.2022, wherein the followi n g was opined:

¶27

“ 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 t h e retir e d employees is clear that they would be entitled to benefits a s

¶28

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

4

¶30

CWP-2994 5 -2024

¶31

appl i cable to State government se r vants. As per Clause 7 of t h e appointment letter, the employees o f the Board are governed by t h e rules applicable to the Haryana government employees. Regulati o n 13 o f the Haryana Housing Boar d (Recruitment & Conditions o f Serv i ce of Officers and Employees) R egulations, 2006 also states th a t in re s pect of pay, leaves and other matters not provided for in t h e regu l ations, the employees of the B oard shall be governed by t h e corr e sponding rules of the State gov e rnment.

¶32

On the interpretation of th e notification dated 28.01.202 0 , whic h was issued by the Housing D epartment, Haryana, we agree with the High Court that the benefit of medical reimbursement is made 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 r Regulations, would be wrong. Pay m ent of a lump sum amount und e the c o ntributory provident fund sch e me, was not a one-time payme n t towa r ds medical reimbursement. In our opinion, medic a l reim b ursement has no link with t he contributory provident fu n d sche m e. The respondents are not seeking pension. Contributo r y prov i dent fund did not subsume m e dical reimbursement. The Hi g h Cou r t was, therefore, justified a n d correct in issuing the sa i d dire c tions. We hope and trust that the petitioner - Board will gi v e bene f its of the judgment to all retiree s of the Board.”

¶33

(emphasis added)

¶34

In view of the discussion abo v e, the present petition is dispos e d of with a d irection to the respondents/co m petent authority to consider t h e claim of th e petitioner and decide the sam e in terms of judgment passed i n A.K. Bhatnagar (supra) . The respondents shall decide the same by passi n g a speaking order within a period of three m onths from the date of receipt o f a certified c opy of this order, strictly in a c cordance with law. Further, t h e

¶35

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

5

¶37

CWP-2994 5 -2024

¶38

decision ta k en thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, i f the petition e r is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be grant e d forthwith b y the respondent/competent aut h ority.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also sta n d disposed o f .

¶40

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 09, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶41

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana 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

Prem Pal Singh Mann Vs Hy.St. Coop Apex Bank Ltd.

Satyendra Kumar Sinha Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Surinder Singh Vs P.R.T.C. and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Sharma and Another Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others

Ramandeep Vs State of Haryana and Others

Khairati Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others