Paramjit Singh Dhillon v. State Of Punjab And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.01.2025 Paramjit Singh Dhillon ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***

Present:

Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

 



 




 

 

  ! *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer made in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 18.02.2020, Annexure P-4 to the extent it relates to the rejection of claim of medical reimbursement as the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-21573-2020 titled as Nirmal Shukla vs. State of Punjab and
others, decided on 15.12.2020 (Annexure P-7), which the learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law, the same reads thus:

"It is rather a harsh case where an unfortunate widow, who lost her husband to the battle of cancer is being made to run from pillar to post after her husband's death so as to get medical reimbursement for an amount of Rs.41,282/- incurred on the treatment of her deceased husband

-2from 13.08.2016 to 23.08.2016, during the period he remained admitted at PGIMER, Chandigarh.

2.

The claim of petitioner for medical reimbursement has been diverted by the official respondents to respondent No.4 i.e Oriental Insurance Company, on the ground that during the relevant period the State Government had floated a scheme, which though only lasted for that particular year, wherein it had been made mandatory for an employee to get himself enrolled to avail cashless benefits for medical treatment. Objection raised qua non-reimbursement of the expenses to the widow is, that the deceased ought to have enrolled himself for the aforesaid cashless scheme. In absence thereof, State Government is not liable to reimburse the medical expenses for that particular year. 3.

Given the mitigating circumstances involved in the case, where the widow was obviously over occupied attending her husband, who was suffering from prostate cancer, to which he eventually succumbed, it is over pedantic view on the part of State functionaries to expect the widow/deceased employee to have the knowledge of such an enrolment with insurance company. Deceased husband too was not in any mental condition and/or physical state to go and get himself enrolled, since he was fighting with a dreadful terminal ailment. 4.

It is otherwise conceded position that the said cashless scheme was introduced only for a particular year i.e 2016. Prior thereto and later thereafter, the State Government continues to bear the expenses of its employees qua their medical treatment. That being the position, the official respondents/State Government are directed to reimburse the medical claim of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of submission of bills, till its actual realisation. If insurance company is liable to pay, as is the contention/objection, it is expected of the official respondents to carry out the procedural formalities to seek reimbursement thereof from the insurer, rather making the widow run around. 5.

In case the medical reimbursement is made to the petitioner within a period of 60 days, the same shall be paid with penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum, to be calculated for the date of expiry of 60 days till its actual payment. Penal interest shall be recovered from the

-3salary of the erring employee responsible for causing delay in the payment."

2.

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of Nirmal Shukla (supra).

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) 29.01.2025 JUDGE dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No