Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Punjab Police to Examine Disability Insurance Claims Under 2019 MoU; Declines to Issue Mandamus Against HDFC Bank
Case Name: Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 09 February 2026
Citation: CWP-3829-2026 & CWP-3858-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that no writ can be issued against a private bank in a contractual insurance dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when alternative remedies are available. However, the Court directed the official respondents to examine and communicate their decision regarding the petitioners’ disability insurance claims under the 2019 Memorandum of Understanding within three months.
Summary: The petitioners sought directions to the State authorities to reconsider their disability insurance claims and to pursue the matter with HDFC Bank under an insurance scheme.
The petitioner in CWP-3829-2026 claimed that he sustained serious injuries in the course of official duty in June 2018 and was declared 55% disabled on 01.02.2024 by the competent medical authority. The department forwarded his claim under the HDFC Bank Insurance Scheme, which was rejected on 18.11.2024 on the ground of late submission. The petitioner thereafter served a legal notice seeking reconsideration.
The State opposed the petitions on the ground that the Memorandum of Understanding between HDFC Bank and the Police Department was executed in 2019, whereas the accidents in question had occurred prior to 2019. It was contended that the department was not willing to forward the claims on that basis.
The Court observed that the primary relief sought was against HDFC Bank, which is a private entity, and that no direction could be issued against it in writ jurisdiction in a purely contractual matter. However, the Court noted that the petitioners were claiming entitlement under a beneficial scheme and that there existed a dispute regarding the relevance of the date of accident vis-à-vis the issuance of disability certificates after execution of the MoU.
Considering the disputed factual matrix, the Court held that the matter required examination by the official respondents. It directed the authorities to examine the petitioners’ claims and communicate their considered opinion within three months.
The Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to examine and communicate their decision regarding the petitioners’ disability insurance claims within three months. No relief was granted against HDFC Bank.