Date State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-29945 9945-2024 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 240 Kumar Satish Kumar CWP-29945-2024 CWP , 2025 Date of Decision: October 09, 2025 Date State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta with Mr.Vai or the r.Vaibhav Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana aryana. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate ocate for respondent No.2. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has bee of the as been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution tution of India with a prayer for issu ure of r issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus us directing the respondents to mak o make the payment of Rs.3,06,501/ ,501/- to the petition etitioner on account of reimbursemen ith an ent of medical bills, along with an interest @ 18 t @ 18% p.a. from the date of submiss ment. bmission of bills till actual payment. Further, a pra r, a prayer was made for issuance of a rari ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing shing resolution dated 27.12.2012 pa ectors 12 passed by the Board of Directors of responden ondent No.2-Haryana Agro-Industries ulated ustries Corporation Limited circulated vide letter da tter dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure P-3) edical 3) whereby the extent of medical reimburseme rsement for retired employees was lim loyee. as limited to Rs.2 lakh per employee. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29945 9945-2024 2 2. Learned counsel for the petition at the petitioner inter alia contends that the issue involve nvolved in the present writ petition An etition is no longer res integra. An identical issu al issue was raised by similarly situate 957 situated employees in CWP No.7957 of 2016, title titled ‘A.K. Bhatnagar Vs. State of cided te of Haryana and others’, decided on 27.04.201 04.2017, wherein it was specially he nction ally held that there is no distinction between retir n retired employees and currently s ms of ntly serving employees in terms of resolution da ion dated 20.09.1972 passed by the Bo ndent- the Board of Directors of respondent Corporation. ion. The benefit accrued to the f his the petitioner at the time of his retirement ca ent cannot be withdrawn by passin n. He passing a subsequent resolution. He further subm submits that the respondent-Corporat 401 rporation even moved LPA No.1401 of 2017 title titled Haryana Agro-Industries AK ries Corporation Limited Vs. AK Bhatnagar a ar and others, against the same whi drawn e which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order d rder dated 15.10.2019. He also pla gment so placed reliance on the judgment rendered by ed by this Court in RSA-5771 of gro 1 of 2014 titled ‘Haryana Agro Industries C es Corporation and another Ve d on Versus J.K. Jain,’ decided on 17.11.2014 (A 014 (Annexure P-9) to support his cas his case. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Per contra, learned counsel for ble to el for respondent No.2 was unable to controvert th ert the legal position as highlighted i and ghted in A.K. Bhatnagar (supra) and J.K. Jain (su n (supra). He assures this Court tha ill be that case of the petitioner will be considered in ered in terms of judgment passed in A. A.K. Bhatnagar (supra). 4. Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record of ord of the case, it transpires that admi retired t admittedly, the petitioner is a retired employee of ee of the respondent-Corporation. Th .1972 ion. The resolution dated 20.09.1972 passed by the by the Board of Directors of respond at the espondent-Corporation states that the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29945 9945-2024 3 employees of ees of the respondent-Corporation w th the tion would be treated at par with the employees o ees of the Government of Haryan ailing aryana for the purpose of availing medical facil l facilities. Nowhere has a distinction loyees ction been drawn between employees who are curr e currently in service and those who ading e who have retired. As such, reading such division ivision into the same by introducin .2012 oducing resolution dated 27.12.2012 would be a be against settled law. Pertinentl been tinently, this issue has also been conclusively sively decided by this Court in A.K. rein it A.K. Bhatnagar (supra), wherein it was held that ld that the words- ‘employees of Cor lution f Corporation’ used in the resolution dated 20.09.1 20.09.1972 includes retired employee ant of ployees for the purpose of grant of medical reim l reimbursement. 5. Further still, reference in this r to the this regard can also be made to the judgment ren nt rendered by a Division Bench of 5 of ch of this Court in LPA No. 1865 of 2017 titled ‘ itled ‘Housing Board Haryana, Pan man Panchkula through its Chairman and another ther Vs. Krishan Chander and other lasses others’ wherein creating two classes of employees loyees devoid of any intelligible diffe vires e differentia was held to be ultra vires of Article 14 cle 14 of the Constitution of India. T dia. The same was also upheld by by a two-Judge be dge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Co ana me Court in Housing Board Haryana and others V rs Vs. Yatinder Kumar Gupta and o peal and others, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1 o. 14826 of 2022 decided on 19.0 owing n 19.09.2022, wherein the following ined: was opined: “ We agree with the reasoning in that ng in the impugned judgment that the ret e retired employees of the appellan ical llant Board are entitled to medical reimbu imbursement at par with the State g the tate government employees and the in-serv service employees of the Board. the ard. The appointment letter of the retired tired employees is clear that they w s as ey would be entitled to benefits as PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29945 9945-2024 4 applica plicable to State government serv the servants. As per Clause 7 of the appoin pointment letter, the employees of the of the Board are governed by the rules a les applicable to the Haryana gove tion government employees. Regulation 13 of of the Haryana Housing Board s of ard (Recruitment & Conditions of Service rvice of Officers and Employees) Re that s) Regulations, 2006 also states that in resp respect of pay, leaves and other m the er matters not provided for in the regula gulations, the employees of the Bo the e Board shall be governed by the corres rresponding rules of the State govern overnment. On the interpretation of the 020, the notification dated 28.01.2020, which ich was issued by the Housing D gree g Department, Haryana, we agree with th ith the High Court that the benefi nt is nefit of medical reimbursement is made ade available to the employees of ana, of the Housing Board, Haryana, and th d therefore to single out the retire this etired employees to deny them this benefit nefit, contrary to the terms of the a 006 he appointment letter and the 2006 Regula egulations, would be wrong. Payme nder yment of a lump sum amount under the con e contributory provident fund schem ent cheme, was not a one-time payment toward wards medical nt. reimbursement. ical In our opinion, medical reimbu imbursement has no link with th fund the contributory provident fund scheme heme. The respondents are not tory ot seeking pension. Contributory provid ovident fund did not subsume med igh medical reimbursement. The High Court urt was, therefore, justified and said and correct in issuing the said directi rections. We hope and trust that th give at the petitioner - Board will give benefit nefits of the judgment to all retirees rees of the Board.” 6. In view of the discussion above, posed above, the present petition is disposed (emphasis added) of with a dir a direction to the respondents/comp er the s/competent authority to consider the claim of the f the petitioner and decide the same sed in same in terms of judgment passed in A.K. Bhatna atnagar (supra). The respondents assing ents shall decide the same by passing a speaking or ing order within a period of three mo ipt of ee months from the date of receipt of a certified co fied copy of this order, strictly in acc r, the in accordance with law. Further, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29945 9945-2024 5 decision take n taken thereof shall be conveyed to th say, if d to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner itioner is found entitled to the relief so ranted lief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by ith by the respondent/competent author authority. 7. Pending miscellaneous applicat stand pplication(s), if any, shall also stand
Decision
ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 09, P.C er 09, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document