Ratti Ram Tanwer v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Govt. Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-3632-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2025 Ratti Ram Tanwer ....Petitioner

Versus

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Ms. Ravisha, Advocate for Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate and Mr. Karanveer Ahuja, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No.1 to 4 to make the payment to the petitioner for outdoor treatment being a chronic heart patient suffering from CAD, TVD, CABG, in view of the legal notice dated 11.12.2019. Further a writ of certiorari has been sought, for quashing the letter dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure P-7) whereby respondent No.3 has rejected the request of the petitioner for reimbursement of outdoor treatment of

retired employee under the Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service Rules, 1988.

2.

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has produced the affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Punia, General Manager (Administration) Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, Chandigarh, along with bank statement and submits that all admissible benefits upto June, 2025, has been paid to the petitioner. The said affidavit along with bank statement is taken on record as Mark X. 3.

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 further submits that on submission of the requisite proforma, pending dues, if any, including the monthly fixed medical reimbursement, will be released in favour of the petitioner from the month of June to October as the payments are made after three months of submission of requisite proforma.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the stand taken by respondents No.3 and 4, however, she refers to the legal notice dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure R-3/1 attached with written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4) and submits that as per their own reply, fixed medical allowance has not been paid to the petitioner since 01.04.2017. 5.

In view of the above, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition has been substantially redressed. As far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to medical reimbursement is concerned, it has to be decided in terms of 19A and 19B of the Haryana

State Cooperative Apex Bank Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1998. The petitioner in terms of the said Rules is being paid a fixed medical reimbursement monthly as such any other claim of the petitioner, which is not covered under the policy cannot be reimbursed. 6.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of as no further issue survives for consideration.

7.

Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 15.09.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No