Si Satbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 5679 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Si Satbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 March, 2024

Author: Vikas Bahl

Bench: Vikas Bahl

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035713




CWP-5863-2024                          [1]                       2024:PHHC:035713



112
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                                    CWP-5863-2024
                                                    Date of decision: 13.03.2024

Satbir Singh                                                             ...Petitioner

                                           Versus

State of Haryana and others                                            ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:       Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

               ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to accept his medical reimbursement bills

amounting to Rs.5,76,151/- incurred on the treatment (Annexure P-1) in

view of judgment rendered in Darshan Singh Rai Vs. Union of India (P&H)

SCT 242 and further directing the respondents to reimburse bills amounting

to Rs.5,76,151/- along with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of

realisation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the

grievances raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the petitioner

would give a detailed representation to the competent authority of

respondent No.1-State and he would be satisfied at this stage, in case, the

competent authority of respondent No.1-State is directed to consider the

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035713

CWP-5863-2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:035713

said representation in a time bound manner and in case, the pleas raised by

the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, to grant necessary relief, in

accordance with law.

3. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the competent

authority of respondent No.1-State would consider the abovesaid

representation, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said

representation.

4. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the

present Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to the competent

authority of respondent No.1-State to consider the abovesaid representation,

in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt of the abovesaid representation and in case, the pleas raised by the

petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, the competent authority would

grant necessary relief, in accordance with law and in case, the competent

authority is of the opinion that the pleas raised by the petitioner are not

meritorious, then, a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.

5. This Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the

competent authority of respondent No.1-State would consider the case of

the petitioner independently, in accordance with law.

13.03.2024                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035713

                                2 of 2