SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of the state’s Health Secretary, describing the official’s decision to go on leave without informing the court as “unacceptable.” The observation was made by a single-judge bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua during a hearing on Friday.
The court was hearing a cluster of 21 petitions, including the lead case of Maatri Medicity and Orthocare Hospital vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, concerning the long-pending payments under the Himcare and Ayushman Bharat healthcare schemes. The petitioners allege that despite providing treatment, their financial dues remain uncleared by the state government.
During the proceedings, the court discovered that the respondent Health Secretary had proceeded on leave from April 9 to April 18. Critically, no prior application for exemption from personal appearance or a formal intimation was filed before the bench.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted in the written order that such behavior is not expected from a high-ranking official, especially when court directions remain pending. The bench emphasized that the practice of going on leave without seeking the court’s permission during active litigation undermines judicial proceedings.
The court has now directed the state government to produce a comprehensive and detailed data record by the next date of hearing. This includes a full breakdown of all empanelled hospitals and institutions involved in the petitions, along with the specific dates on which their bills were submitted.
The state must also clarify the status of these bills—detailing which have been approved, which were rejected, and the specific reasons for any pending payments. Furthermore, the court has sought the exact dates on which payments were released for the approved claims.
The high-stakes matter, which involves the financial viability of several healthcare providers in the state, is now scheduled for further hearing on April 28. The government is expected to provide a transparent timeline and justification for the delay in settling the arrears.
