Ganga Dhar vs State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-38746-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
256
CWP-38746-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.09.2026
Ganga Dhar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Pankaj Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate
with Mr. Devraj Asati, Advocate
for the respondent/University.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari , for quashing and setting-aside the order dated 25.11.2021
(Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.3, vide which the claim of the
petitioner for full reimbursement of emergency medical treatment
incurred on account of COVID-19 treatment, has been rejected. Further
a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to grant
and disburse the outstanding medical reimbursement amount of Rs.
3,71,007/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum on the said balance amount, calculated from the date of such
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-38746-2025 2
partial reimbursement till the date of actual payment of the entire
outstanding amount.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that
the petitioner retired on 31.05.2008 after serving the
respondent/University for more than 33 years. During the COVID-19
pandemic, the petitioner contracted the infection and was initially
hospitalized at Civil Hospital, Hisar and thereafter at Sarvodya Hospital,
Hisar. During the course of treatment, his medical condition deteriorated
and he developed acute respiratory distress, severe breathing difficulty,
persistent high-grade fever, critically low oxygen saturation levels and
other life-threatening complications requiring immediate emergency
medical intervention. He submits that the condition of the petitioner
became so critical that he lost consciousness and his life was in
imminent danger. Upon examination and assessment of the gravity of
his condition, the doctors at Hisar found that the medical facilities
available there were inadequate to manage such a critical COVID-19
case requiring advanced life-support systems and specialized intensive
care. Accordingly, the doctors issued a referral and advised the family
members to immediately shift the petitioner to a super-specialty hospital
in Delhi for specialized emergency treatment, ventilator support and
advanced intensive care. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was
immediately admitted to the Emergency Ward of Shree Aggarsain
International Hospital, Sector 22, Rohini, Delhi, where he remained
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-38746-2025 3
admitted in the ICU. After 21 days of intensive monitoring and
specialized treatment, his condition improved and he was discharged.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
treatment administered to the petitioner included ventilator support for
several days on account of acute respiratory distress, administration of
life-saving medicines, including antiviral drugs, antibiotics, steroids and
anticoagulants, oxygen therapy, continuous monitoring of vital
parameters, blood investigations, CT scans, X-rays and other necessary
investigations and procedures in accordance with the treatment protocol
applicable to severe COVID-19 infection. During the aforesaid
treatment, the petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,87,100/- and
being a retired person with limited financial resources, he did not have
the financial capacity to meet the said expenditure. However, with the
assistance of his relatives and friends, he managed to arrange the said
requisite amount. After his discharge, the petitioner submitted the
complete medical record, discharge summary, prescriptions,
investigation reports and bills to the office of the Civil Surgeon, Hisar,
for verification.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
Verification Certificate dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-3) itself records
that the petitioner had undergone treatment in an emergency. Despite the
same, his claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2021
(Annexure P-2) in a cryptic manner and without assigning any cogent
reasons.
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-38746-2025 4
3. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/University
submits that the respondent/University has acted in accordance with the
order dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure P-7). He further submits that the
State of Haryana, in exercise of powers under Section 2 of the Epidemic
Diseases Act, 1897, had capped the charges for treatment of COVID-19
patients vide order dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure P-7). Accordingly, the
hospitals were required to charge only the rates prescribed by the State
Government. He further submits that reimbursement of medical
expenses is governed by the rates and conditions prescribed by the State
Government for treatment of persons affected by or threatened with an
outbreak of a dangerous epidemic disease. He further contends that the
hospital where the petitioner underwent treatment was not an
empanelled/approved hospital under the applicable medical
reimbursement policy. Consequently, an amount of Rs.3,16,093/-, being
the admissible amount in terms of the Instructions dated 25.06.2020
(Annexure P-7), has already been released to the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
5. The claim for medical reimbursement ought not to be
dismissed merely because the claimant underwent treatment in a non-
empanelled. In such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes
into play, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by
the claimant in an emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on his
medical record, in order to save his life, the reimbursement for the same
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-38746-2025 5
must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but
it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and
therefore, it shall always retain the highest priority.
6. Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the
availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot
expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the
reason of non-empanelment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of
the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and
therefore, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be
placed on the judgments rendered by a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others(1996) 2
SCC 336, whereby, speaking through Justice M.M. Punchhi, the
following was opined:
“ 8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open
heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be
examined by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992
titled as Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H). decided
on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ petitioner
to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to
save his life he had got himself operated upon in the
Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid
rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave
Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was
dismissed by this Court on 2.2.1994. The other judgments
of the High Court following the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's
case are :
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-38746-2025 6
(1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 decided on
10.5.95 titled K.L. Kohli v. State of Punjab and
others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H);
(2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, decided on
30.5.1995 titled Ravi Mohan Duggal v. State
of Punjab and others (DB)
(3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decided on 4.9.94
titled Prem Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and
others;
(4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H): 1995 (III)
Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander
v. State of Punjab etc. (SB); and
(5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H): 1995 (III),
Punjab Law Reporter 682 titled Mrs. Surya
Pandit v. State of Punjab and others (SB)
xxx xxx xxx
10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self
preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of
the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India , fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and
inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and
right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self
defence in criminal law…

11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in
self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before
the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which,
bare-facedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The
appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the
Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to
an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself
has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile
for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have
gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be
allowed, on suppositions. We think to the contrary…”
7. In the present case, the medical record clearly demonstrates
that the petitioner was suffering from a serious and life-threatening
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-38746-2025 7
condition and required immediate specialized medical intervention. He
was referred from the hospitals at Hisar to a super-specialty hospital in
Delhi and was, thereafter, admitted in the Emergency Ward and treated
in the ICU, including with ventilator support. The circumstances,
therefore, clearly establish that the treatment was undertaken in an
emergency and was essential for preservation of the petitioner's life.
Therefore, the test of essentiality and emergency stands s atisfied.
8. In light of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed
and set-aside. The respondent/University is directed to reimburse the
petitioner the balance amount of Rs. 3,71,007/- (Rs. 6,87,100/- – Rs.
3,16,093/-) within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. The respondents shall also pay interest on
the balance amount @ 6% per annum, to be calculated from the date of
filing of the present writ petition i.e. 15.12.2025 until the date of actual
payment.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
09.09.2026
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.