Haryana State Cooperative Supply And Marketing Federation Limited (Hafed) vs Pardeep Kumar Bansal And Another

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104+236
CM-6944-LPA-2026 in/and
LPA-812-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED (HAFED)
...Appellant
Versus
PARDEEP KUMAR BANSAL AND ANR
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV

Present: Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate and
Ms. Gurnoor Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate
for respondent No.1-applicant.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)
1. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is to the final
order and judgment dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
CWP No.376 of 2026 titled as ‘Pardeep Kumar Bansal vs. State of Haryana
and another’ whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (petitioner
in the writ petition) was allowed so as to grant the benefit of actual medical
reimbursement without the ceiling of Rs.2,00,000/-
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the benefit of
medical reimbursement is governed by the Haryana State Cooperative
Supply & Marketing Federation Limited (Common Cadre) Rules, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘1988 Rules’). Rule 16(8) of the said 1988
Rules deals with medical reimbursement and provides that the same shall be
allowed in accordance with the instructions issued by the Registrar from
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-6944-LPA-2026 in/and -2-
LPA-812-2026 (O&M)
time to time.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid
provision continued to govern medical reimbursement until its amendment
in the year 2025. Rule 16(8), sub-clause (2), was amended on 14.10.2025,
much after the date on which the respondent had undertaken the medical
treatment for which reimbursement was sought. Hence, the removal of the
ceiling of Rs.2,00,000/- cannot be applied retrospectively to medical
treatment undertaken prior to the amendment so as to entitle the respondent
to reimbursement of the entire amount. Such an interpretation would be
contrary to Rule 16(8), sub-clause (1), which, according to learned counsel
for the appellant, has not been properly considered by the learned Single
Judge.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits
that the Board of Administrators passed a resolution on 23.11.2020 and the
same was approved by the Registrar on 30.09.2025 for amendment of the
1988 Rules which ultimately got implemented vide notification dated
14.10.2025. It is contended that since the resolution was passed prior to the
date on which the medical treatment in question was undertaken, the benefit
of the amendment would relate back to 23.11.2020. Accordingly, the
interpretation adopted by the learned Single Judge in granting the benefit of
medical reimbursement is stated to be correct.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It may be noticed that it is an admitted position that the benefit
of medical reimbursement is governed by the 1988 Rules. Rule 16(8) of the
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-6944-LPA-2026 in/and -3-
LPA-812-2026 (O&M)
said Rules 1988, which deals with the grant of the said benefit prior to the
amendment dated 14.10.2025, reads as under:
8) Medical Reimbursement
1. Medial reimbursement shall be allowed to the employees
as per instructions issued by Registrar from time to time.
2. Medical reimbursement for indoor treatment shall also
be allowed to retired employees of the federation including their
dependent family members with overall ceiling of
Rs.2,00,000/-’.
7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that medical
reimbursement is to be allowed in accordance with the instructions issued by
the Registrar from time to time. Therefore, in the absence of any subsequent
amendment or instructions issued by the competent authority, the existing
conditions governing medical reimbursement would continue to apply. The
applicable provision prescribed an overall ceiling of Rs. 2,00,000/- for
medical reimbursement as provided under Rule 16(8)(2) of the 1988 Rules.
8. Though the Board of Administrators, in its 370th meeting held
on 23.11.2020, passed a resolution proposing that the ceiling of Rs.
2,00,000/- be waived for the purpose of medical reimbursement, it may be
noticed that the Registrar approved the proposal only on 30.09.2025, when
Rule 16(8) was amended to remove the aforesaid ceiling and such
amendment has been implemented vide notification dated 14.10.2025. Once
the amendment to the Rules was approved and brought into effect on
14.10.2025, the question that arises for consideration is whether such
amendment can be treated as retrospective and made applicable from the
date of the resolution passed by the Board of Administrators.
9. The learned Single Judge has held that once the Board of
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-6944-LPA-2026 in/and -4-
LPA-812-2026 (O&M)
Administrators passed a resolution on 23.11.2020, the subsequent approval
granted by the Registrar on 30.09.2025 would relate back to the date of the
resolution, thereby entitling the respondent to the benefit of the amended
provision.
10. It may be noticed that the present case is not merely the one in
which a decision taken by the Board of Administrators was subsequently
approved by the Registrar. Rather, the matter concerns the applicability of a
statutory provision governing medical reimbursement, which prescribed
specific terms and conditions on the date when the respondent underwent the
medical treatment. Under the provision then in force, the maximum
permissible reimbursement was subject to an overall ceiling of Rs.
2,00,000/-. Therefore, the ceiling prescribed under the Rules would continue
to apply unless and until the Rules were amended in accordance with the
procedure prescribed therein.
11. It may further be noticed that under the 1988 Rules, even where
relaxation of any provision is sought, the same can be granted only with the
prior approval of the Board of Directors and the Registrar. It is clear that the
approval of the Registrar is necessary before such relaxation to the rules can
be given effect to, even where the proposal has been recommended by the
Board of Directors. Further, Rule 24 of the 1988 Rules deals with the
interpretation of the Rules and provides for reference of the matter to the
Registrar, whose decision shall be final. Thus, wherever approval of the
Registrar is required under the 1988 Rules, a mere recommendation by the
Board of Directors would not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to the
benefit sought.
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-6944-LPA-2026 in/and -5-
LPA-812-2026 (O&M)
12. A mere recommendation by the Board of Administrators to
amend Rule 16(8) so as to remove the ceiling of Rs. 2,00,000/- for medical
reimbursement cannot, by itself, have retrospective effect merely because
the Registrar subsequently approves the proposal. Unless the Registrar
expressly provides that the amendment shall operate retrospectively, the
benefit of such amendment cannot be extended to a period prior to the date
on which the amendment came into force.
13. In the present case, nothing has been brought to the notice of
this Court to establish that the Registrar granted approval to the amendment
with retrospective effect. Rather, the said amendment to the Rule 16(8)(2) of
1988 Rules was implemented on 14.10.2025, without any demonstrated
provision making the amendment retrospective. Consequently, the amended
provision would apply to medical treatment undertaken on or after
14.10.2025. In the present case, the respondent underwent the medical
treatment prior to 14.10.2025, when the unamended provision was in force.
Accordingly, the claim for reimbursement would be governed by the Rules
as they existed on the date of the treatment, which prescribed an overall
ceiling of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
14. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the
admitted position that medical reimbursement is governed by the 1988
Rules, which were amended on 14.10.2025 to remove the ceiling of Rs.
2,00,000/-, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to grant
reimbursement of the entire amount incurred on medical treatment
undertaken prior to the letter dated 14.10.2025 implementing the said
amendment is contrary to the applicable 1988 Rules and cannot be sustained.
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-6944-LPA-2026 in/and -6-
LPA-812-2026 (O&M)
15. Further, neither the provision governing medical
reimbursement, as it existed on the date of the treatment has been challenged
nor has the letter dated 14.10.2025 been challenged on the ground that it
operates prospectively. Hence, the claim for reimbursement was required to
be decided on the basis of the Rules in force on the date when the respondent
underwent the medical treatment, which was admittedly prior to 14.10.2025.
The ceiling of Rs. 2,00,000/- would, therefore, apply to the respondent's
claim for reimbursement. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.01.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge, being contrary to Rule 16(8)(2) of the
1988 Rules as applicable on the relevant date of treatment is set aside.
16. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits that Rule 23, as it existed prior to 14.10.2025,
contained a provision for relaxing any of the provisions of the 1988 Rules
with prior approval of Board of Directors and the Registrar and that such
relaxation has been granted on several occasions wherever considered
necessary. It is further submitted that despite an application having been
moved by the respondent seeking relaxation of the applicable provision, no
decision has been taken by the competent authority thereon.
17. It may be noticed that, if any such application has been moved
by the respondent and is pending consideration, it is incumbent upon the
appellant to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and
speaking order in accordance with law.
18. Accordingly, if the application for relaxation, stated to have
been filed by the respondent as annexed as Annexure P-4, is still pending,
the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-6944-LPA-2026 in/and -7-
LPA-812-2026 (O&M)
with the 1988 Rules, including the applicable provisions governing
relaxation and the requirement of approval by the Board of Directors and the
Registrar, as the case may be. The said application shall be decided by
passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19. The present appeal is disposed of in the abovesaid terms.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(MINDERJEET YADAV)
JUDGE
October 27, 2026
Nisha-1
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
NISHA
2026.11.02 10.45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document