JAGMAL SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/25694/2018

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 05-Oct-2018

CNR: PHHC010972812018

Filing Number

CWP/25694/2018

Filing Date

04-Oct-2018

Registration No

CWP/25694/2018

Registration Date

04-Oct-2018

Judge

Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Coram

Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Bench Type

Single

Category

58.9 - SERVICE-EDU-HARYANA(SECONDARY)MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEN ( 732 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAGMAL SINGH

    Adv. R S MAMLI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Tribhuvan DahiyaView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Jagmal Singh's petition seeking medical reimbursement for treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in September 2004. The court found that Singh's claim failed on two grounds: he submitted the bills over twelve years after treatment (30.08.2017), violating the mandatory six/twelve-month submission deadline, and the bills lacked required countersignature by the Civil Surgeon/Medical Superintendent, which was mandatory under applicable policy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Oct-2018

    Mr. Justice Sudip Ahluwalia

  4. 05-Oct-2018

    —

    Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar

  5. 04-Oct-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/25694/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Jagmal Singh's petition seeking medical reimbursement for treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in September 2004. The court found that Singh's claim failed on two grounds: he submitted the bills over twelve years after treatment (30.08.2017), violating the mandatory six/twelve-month submission deadline, and the bills lacked required countersignature by the Civil Surgeon/Medical Superintendent, which was mandatory under applicable policy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case