Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshan Lal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030537
CWP-24898-2016 2024:PHHC:030537 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(208) CWP-24898-2016
Date of Decision : March 04, 2024
Roshan Lal .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is
that father of the petitioner had undertaken medical treatment in Medi City,
Multi-specialty Hospital and Neuro Care Center, Hisar and in Sarvodaya
Multi specialty Hospital, Hisar, reimbursement of which was sought but the
respondents have declined the claim of the petitioner vide order dated
06.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) and that too without any valid justification.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that by a totally
cryptic and non-speaking order, the medical bills submitted by the petitioner
for reimbursement have been returned vide letter dated 06.01.2016, a copy
of which has been appended with this petition as Annexure P-5, which is
totally arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
as the father of the petitioner was dependent upon the petitioner, the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030537
respondents are under an obligation to reimburse the medical bills in respect
of the treatment undertaken by the father of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the father
of the petitioner was having his own income hence, cannot be treated as a
dependent and therefore, vide order dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure P-5), the
medical bills submitted by the petitioner have been returned.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. It is a settled principle of law that whenever a claim is raised,
the same needs to be adjudicated by the Department by passing appropriate
speaking order even while performing the executive function. Due reason
for arriving at a conclusion has to be mentioned in the order so that the
concerned employee should know as to what weighed with the mind of the
authorities concerned either to accept or to reject the claim. The law on this
issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.457 of 1970 titled as 'Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P.
and others', decided on 02.04.1970. Relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are as under:-
"5. The case discloses a disturbing state of affairs. The
authorities have disclosed by their conduct a reckless
disregard of the rights of the appellants. The order passed by
the District Magistrate cancelling the licences was quasi-
judicial; it could be made only on a consideration of the
charges and the explanation given by the appellants. That
necessarily implied that the District Magistrate had to give
some reasons why he held the charges proved, and the
explanation unacceptable. When the matter was carried in
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030537
appeal, the State Government could at least have acted with
some awareness that citizens have rights which must be
protected against possible arbitrary action by subordinate
officials. The District Magistrate is not made the final
authority in cancelling the licence. The appellants had a right
to carry on their business, and as they held a licence to carry
on their business they could be deprived of their right by an
executive order supported by good and adequate reasons.The
relevant rules granted a right of appeal to the State
Government against that order, and that implied that the
aggrieved party must have an opportunity to convince the State
Government that the order passed by District Magistrate was
erroneous. That right could be effectively exercised if reasons
be recorded by the District Magistrate and supplied to the
aggrieved party. If the aggrieved party is not supplied the
reasons, the right to appeal is an empty formality.
6. From the materials on the record it cannot be
determined as to who considered the appeal addressed to the
State Government, and what was considered by the authority
exercising power on behalf of the State Government. The
practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeals
against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights
of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of
the rule of law. This Court had occasion to protest against this
practice in several decisions : See Madhya Pradesh Industries
Ltd. v. Union of India, (1966)1 SCR 466 (perSubba Rao, J.);
Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, (1967)3 SCR 302; State of
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030537
Madhya Pradesh v.Narsinghdas Jankidas Mehta, C.A. No. 681
of 1966, decided on 29-4-1969(SC); State ofGujarat v. Patel
Raghav Nath, C.A. No. 723 of 1966, decided on 21-4-1969 and
Prag Das UmarVaishya v. Union India, C.A. No. 657 of 1965,
decided on 17-8-1967 (SC). The power of the District
Magistrate was quasi-judicial : exercise of the power of the
State Government was subject tothe supervisory power of the
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and of the
appellate power of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution. The High Court and this Court would be placed
under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given, and the
appeal is dismissed without recording and communicating any
reasons".
6. A bare perusal of the order dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure P-5)
would show that not even a single reason has been given for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner hence, order dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) cannot
be treated as a valid order so as to decline the claim of the petitioner for
medical reimbursement.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that reply has
been given wherein due reasons have been given for rejecting the claim of
the petitioner.
8. It may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law settled
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1297 of 1977
titled as Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others, decided on 02.12.1997, it has been
held that an affidavit or a reply cannot be a substitute to the order and any
reason given in the reply or the affidavit cannot be treated as valid reason
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030537
for accepting or rejecting the claim. The relevant paragraph 8 of the said
judgment is as under:-
" 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons
in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an
order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to
court on account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw
attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas
Bhanji case:
(1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of
explanations subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind,
or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public
authorities are meant to have public effect and are
intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be construed
objectively with reference to the language used in the
order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they
grow older."
9. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order dated
06.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. The case is remanded back to the
authorities concerned to pass an appropriate speaking order qua the claim of
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030537
the petitioner for the medical reimbursement. It may be noticed that the
judgment in CWP No.10937 of 2007 titled as Smt. Usha Kumari vs. State
of Punjab and others decided on 20.05.2008 be kept in mind while passing
the fresh order.
10. The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.
March 04, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030537
6 of 6
