The Delhi High Court has directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to fully reimburse a court employee for the medical expenses incurred during the emergency treatment of his wife, holding that outdated reimbursement ceilings cannot be used to deny legitimate medical claims. The court also quashed a recovery notice issued against the employee and ordered a refund of amounts deducted from his salary with interest.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Jeet Singh, an Ahlmad working in the District Courts at Tis Hazari, approached the High Court after authorities demanded recovery of ₹71,868 from him following the treatment of his wife at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in April 2006.
According to the case record, Singh's wife suffered from acute liver failure and was admitted to the hospital in a critical and comatose condition. She remained hospitalized for nearly two weeks and underwent intensive treatment. The total medical bill came to ₹1,89,324.
Although the authorities had initially sanctioned a medical advance of ₹2.25 lakh, they later restricted reimbursement to ₹1,17,456 by applying reimbursement ceilings fixed under government memorandums issued in 2002 and 2003. The balance amount was sought to be recovered from Singh's salary.
Court's Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the case involved a life-threatening medical emergency where the petitioner's immediate concern was saving his wife's life rather than comparing treatment costs or obtaining prior approvals.
The court observed,
“His only priority at that moment was the life of his wife.”
Referring to Supreme Court rulings on the right to health, the court emphasized that medical reimbursement claims supported by genuine treatment records cannot be rejected on technical grounds.
The judgment further rejected the government's allegation that the initial treatment estimate submitted by the petitioner was fraudulent. The court held that medical estimates are only provisional assessments prepared by doctors and cannot be treated as evidence of wrongdoing merely because the final bill turns out to be lower.
The court also found fault with the authorities for relying on reimbursement rates fixed in 2002 to assess expenses incurred in 2006.
“The application of this stale rate schedule and consequent recovery of the balance amount from the salary of the Petitioner is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside,” the court observed.
Allowing the writ petition, the Delhi High Court quashed the recovery notice dated 11 September 2006.
The court directed the authorities to reimburse the actual medical expenditure of ₹1,89,324 incurred for the treatment of the petitioner's wife instead of restricting reimbursement to ₹1,17,456.
It also ordered refund of all amounts recovered from the petitioner's salary along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of deduction until actual payment.
The refund and reimbursement have been directed to be completed within eight weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: Sh. Jeet Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 922/2007
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: 29 May 2026
-300x169.webp)
