CM Relief Fund Assistance Not Adjustable Against Medical Reimbursement; HP High Court Allows Writ Petition, Quashes State Deduction Order
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel has held that the State cannot adjust the sum of Rs 1,25,000 granted from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund in 2012 against a government employee’s subsequent medical reimbursement claims. Clarifying the nature of the payment, the Court observed that the amount sanctioned from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund was extended without any stipulation that it would later be recovered or deducted on the occurrence of any event. In consequence, the Court quashed the communication directing deduction of this amount from the petitioner’s medical bills for the treatment of a dependent family member and directed the authorities to release the admissible medical reimbursement without making such adjustment.
The petitioner, a retired Inspector from the State Police Department aged about 68 years, approached the High Court challenging a departmental communication directing deduction of a sum earlier received from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund from his medical reimbursement claims. His son had been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease in 2005 and advised hemodialysis twice weekly. As per the petition, departmental financial assistance was not granted, leading him to seek help from the Chief Minister, who in 2012 sanctioned Rs 1,25,000 from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund for treatment at PGIMER, Chandigarh, where monthly expenses were assessed at about Rs 35,000.
The petitioner asserted that the sanctioned amount was fully spent on his son’s treatment, no medical reimbursement was claimed during that period, and further expenses were incurred until the son’s death in September 2021, after which medical reimbursement was sought from the Department. He contended that deducting the Relief Fund amount from the admissible reimbursement was unwarranted and did not result in any double benefit.
The State, relying on its reply, argued that the son, having crossed 25 years of age, was not eligible for reimbursement and that bills were nevertheless entertained on compassionate grounds subject to deduction of the amount earlier granted from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. The judgment does not specifically refer to any statutory provision by name or section.
The Court recorded that “some more compassion and sympathy has to be shown by the Department.” The Court examined Annexure P-2 and observed that “an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, released by the worthy Chief Minister out of his own Relief Fund, was not with any condition that the same was to be reimbursed or deducted later on upon the happening of any eventuality.”
The Court further recorded that “it is not the case of the respondents that when the petitioner applied to the worthy Chief Minister for the sanction of an amount to take care of his son, he concealed the fact that he was a serving employee of the Government and was entitled for medical reimbursement.” It stated that the competent authority sanctioned the amount “knowing fully well all these facts.”
The Court also observed that the amount of ₹1,25,000 was “not paid to the petitioner from the coffers of the respondent, that is to say, the Police Department.” In this context, it recorded that the Department’s act of directing deduction was “extremely harsh.” The Court stated that the impugned communication did not indicate that any inquiry was conducted to verify whether the petitioner “misused the amount which he received under the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund or was seeking double-double reimbursement from the Department.”
Referring to the chronology, the Court observed that the petitioner had not claimed any reimbursement during the period when the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund was utilized. It noted that the petitioner continued to incur medical expenses for his son until his death and only then sought reimbursement. The Court stated that the circumstances revealed no basis to treat the assistance as recoverable or adjustable.
Drawing from the facts presented, the Court concluded that the deduction of ₹1,25,000 from the petitioner’s medical reimbursement claims was “highly arbitrary, unjust and not sustainable in the eyes of law, in the peculiar facts of this case.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and held that “Communication, Annexure P-8, at Page-36 of the paper-book, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make good the medical reimbursement claim bills of the petitioner without deducting an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- which was paid to him in the year 2012 under the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.”
“Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: M/s Dhiraj Thakur and Priyanka Chandel, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: Pritam Marshal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:38721
Case Number: CWP No. 4155 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
