Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Fresh Review of Medical Reimbursement Claims, Says Article 21 Prevails Over Technicalities & Health Benefits Cannot Be Defeated

Case Name: Swati Yadav v. State of Haryana & Others and Connected Matters

Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026

Citation: CWP-16778-2024 and connected cases

Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that medical reimbursement claims of State employees and pensioners cannot be rejected merely because treatment was obtained from a non-empanelled private hospital during emergencies. The Court emphasized that the right to health is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and directed the State Government’s committee to reconsider each claim individually and sympathetically in light of constitutional principles and binding precedents.

Summary: A batch of writ petitions challenged various aspects of Haryana’s medical reimbursement policy, including denial or drastic reduction of reimbursement for treatment obtained from non-empanelled hospitals, restriction of reimbursement to PGI rates despite policy provisions permitting higher reimbursement, the income ceiling of ₹3,500 per month for dependent beneficiaries, and the alleged inadequacy of existing package rates in view of rising healthcare costs.

The Court observed that the right to health and medical care forms an inseparable component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. It reiterated that medical reimbursement policies are welfare measures intended to protect employees and pensioners from financial hardship arising from illness and should therefore be interpreted in a humane and purposive manner.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted that while government institutions such as PGI provide excellent healthcare facilities, practical realities such as overcrowding, lack of beds, long waiting periods, and medical emergencies often compel patients to seek treatment from the nearest available hospital. In such circumstances, denial of reimbursement solely because the hospital was not empanelled would elevate procedural requirements over human survival.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Shiv Kant Jha v. Union of India, wherein it was held that reimbursement claims cannot be denied merely because treatment was obtained from a non-recognised hospital when the treatment was genuine and emergent. The Court also referred to earlier Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions advocating a liberal and welfare-oriented interpretation of reimbursement policies.

During the hearing, the State informed the Court that the existing reimbursement policy and the challenged provisions were already under active reconsideration to bring them in line with contemporary healthcare realities. Taking note of this statement, the Court considered it appropriate not to keep the writ petitions pending and instead directed a structured reconsideration of the individual claims.

Decision: Disposing of the batch of petitions, the High Court directed the committee constituted by the State Government under the Chairmanship of the Additional Director Health Services to examine each petitioner’s case independently and pass a conscious, reasoned decision within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court further directed that any amount found payable shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it became due until actual payment. The authorities were also directed to keep in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shiv Kant Jha, State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.P. Ojha, and earlier decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court while deciding the claims.