1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14879 of 2026 Decided on: 27.08.2026 M/s Nav Jeevan Hospital …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sidhant Jamwal, and Ms. Ridhi Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. -------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: -“(i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to make the payment of all duly approved claims submitted on account of the treatment of the patients under HIMCARE Scheme by the petitioner Hospital amounting to ₹9,01,900/- alongwith interest @1% of claim amount per week after 15 days of delay/turn-around time as provided in the Scheme. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay cost of litigation to the petitioner Hospital.” 2. It is not in dispute that the legal issue involved in this petition has already been adjudicated upon in M/s 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2

Maatri Medicity & Orthocare Hospital Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the dispute involved in this petition is covered by the said decision. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content if the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, in a time-bound manner. The prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In view of above submissions, respondent No. 3/competent authority is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner within two weeks. In case the claim is found to be covered in terms of M/s Maatri Medicity & Orthocare Hospital², the directions issued therein including the timelines provided therein shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the instant case as well. The said respondent/competent authority shall pass an appropriate order in this regard within two weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2CWP No.2080/2026, decided on 21.07.2026 a/w connected matters 3 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 27, 2026 Judge yogesh

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14879 of 2026 Decided on: 27.08.2026 M/s Nav Jeevan Hospital …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sidhant Jamwal, and Ms. Ridhi Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. -------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: -“(i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to make the payment of all duly approved claims submitted on account of the treatment of the patients under HIMCARE Scheme by the petitioner Hospital amounting to ₹9,01,900/- alongwith interest @1% of claim amount per week after 15 days of delay/turn-around time as provided in the Scheme. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay cost of litigation to the petitioner Hospital.” 2. It is not in dispute that the legal issue involved in this petition has already been adjudicated upon in M/s 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2

Maatri Medicity & Orthocare Hospital Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the dispute involved in this petition is covered by the said decision. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content if the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, in a time-bound manner. The prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In view of above submissions, respondent No. 3/competent authority is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner within two weeks. In case the claim is found to be covered in terms of M/s Maatri Medicity & Orthocare Hospital², the directions issued therein including the timelines provided therein shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the instant case as well. The said respondent/competent authority shall pass an appropriate order in this regard within two weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2CWP No.2080/2026, decided on 21.07.2026 a/w connected matters 3 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 27, 2026 Judge yogesh