Sher Chand vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 21793 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sher Chand vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 December, 2023

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

2023:PHHC:159557
CWP-3235-1996
Date of Decision: 13.12.2023
Sher Chand ...Petitioner
Vs.

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Present None for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

3K 2k

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition claims reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him in relation to the treatment of his son for cancer at Mohan Dai Oswal Cancer Institute, Ludhiana along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted the medical bills relating to the treatment of his son for lung cancer. However, his son could not survive and expired on 08.09.1992. During treatment from January, 1991 to September, 1992, an amount of Rs.2 Lakh was spent by the petitioner but the same has not been reimbursed, he, therefore, filed the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

4. The respondents have filed their reply stating that although the petitioner spent huge amount on the treatment of his son but since the

petitioner's son was 31 years of age and married, he cannot be said to be

RAJESH KUMAR

2023.12.15 09:33

| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

CWP-3235-1996 [2] 2023:PHHC: 159557

dependent upon the petitioner as the scheme for reimbursement is only for the government servant and persons who are dependent upon him. Although the request of the petitioner for reimbursement was processed but it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the son of the petitioner was not actually dependent upon his father i.e. petitioner. The medical reimbursement has, therefore, been rejected.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondents, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as his son had already attained majority and was also married, while the claim for reimbursement is only available to the government servant and his dependents alone.

7. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

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

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

13.12.2023 rajesh

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

RAJESH KUMAR

2023.12.15 09:33

| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.