High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/186/2018disposed of

Jagdish Lal Midha v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2019-03-05Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-186-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-186-2018 Date of decision: - 05.03.2019 Jagdish Lal Midha ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Harpal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate for respondent No.4.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is that medical bills were not being reimbursed despite the fact that he was entitled for the same. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, petitioner was working as a Sanitary Inspector in Municipal Council, Abohar, from where he retired on 28.02.1998. He remained under treatment from 01.01.2017 till 09.01.2017 at Max Hospital, Bathinda as an indoor patient.

Counsel for the petitioner states that for the said treatment, petitioner spent `3,53,817.39/- and as per the averments made in para NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.11 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-186-2018 -2No.4 of the writ petition, the Director Health & Family Welfare had approved the payment of bills of `2,54,302 only. Counsel for the petitioner further states that despite the approval of the said medical bills, no payment was made to the petitioner and hence, he filed the present writ petition. Upon notice of motion, Mr. Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.4 and states that out of the total sanctioned amount, a sum of `1,00,000/- has been paid to the petitioner on 28.02.2019 and the remaining amount will be paid to him by 30.04.2019.

Keeping in view the undertaking given for the release of the amount by 30.04.2019, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this writ petition any further. Disposed of, as not pressed.

It is made clear that the respondents shall be bound by the undertaking and in case of any default, the same will be viewed seriously. ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) March 05, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.11 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh