Srinagar, Feb 6: Underscoring that Right to make reimbursement flows directly from the fundamental right to life, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) here has directed the government to deposit Rs 10 Lakh with its Registry in a medical reimbursement case involving a government employee who underwent liver transplant recently.
A bench of M S Latif Member (Judicial) directed the Rural Development Department to deposit with its Registry the said amount out of the medical reimbursement claim of the employee, Bashir Ahmad Pandith by March 5.
However, the Tribunal made it clear that the amount shall not be released in favour of the Pandith till detailed objections are filed by the authorities to his plea and the same are considered by the court.
In his plea Pandith is seeking to quash the communication dated August 28, 2025 issued by the Director Finance, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj whereunder the medical reimbursement has been refused to him for the reasons that a government employee shall prefer treatment at a Government Hospital or in any other hospital empanelled by the Government unless the prescribed medical authority refers the case for specific medical institute with justification.
He also seeks direction to the authorities to process, sanction and release his medical reimbursement claim amounting to Rs, 26 lakhs that he incurred at MIOT International Hospital, Chennai for his liver transplant treatment.
Pandith has assailed the refusal order on various grounds including the one that the order is in violation of the mandate of the judgement of the apex court delivered in case titled as Shiv Kant Jha versus Union of India, 2018 vol. 3 SLR 328 SC.
He submitted that in the judicial pronouncement, the apex court has held that an employee could not be denied reimbursement solely on the ground that he or she has taken treatment in a specialized hospital, not approved by the State.
The portioner submitted that the action of the respondents in withholding his reimbursement is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he referred to a judgement of the High Court of J&K, Srinagar, titled as Bimla Ji Bhat and others versus UT of J&K and others (WPC No. 1726/2015) decided on 28-09-2022.
In response to the submissions, the Tribunal noted that Right to make reimbursement flows directly from the fundamental right to life, guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities to its citizens. If a Government servant has suffered an ailment, which requires treatment at a specialized and approved hospital and on reference by the Government to the said hospital, if the employee, suffering from such disease, is in need of reimbursement of money, it is but the duty of the state to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government servant, which requires to be reimbursed to the employee by the State forthwith,” the Tribunal said. The Tribunal observed that in Shiv Kant Jha judgement the apex court has categorically held that reimbursement of medical expenses cannot be denied merely on the ground that treatment was taken in a non-empanelled hospital and without prior permission.
In response to the submission that the medical reimbursement of the petitioner cannot be denied merely on the procedural technicalities, more particularly, in cases involving chronic illness, the Tribunal said: “…. the facilities of medical reimbursement of an employee is a valuable right, which the employer offers to its employees. The inhibitive interpretation of the said policy, which has the effect of defeating it altogether, can never be accepted”.
The Tribunal noted that in an emergency and in a life-threatening situation, a patient has no time to wait for permission for undergoing treatment at a government hospital or an empanelled hospital, particularly, when the right to life, guaranteed under the Constitution, mandates timely and effective medical care. The Tribunal said it is not in dispute that Pandith has not undergone the medical procedure, which is substantiated by the certificate, issued by the MIOT International Hospital, Chennai, coupled with the bills. “The petitioner has already spent a huge amount of Rs. 26 lakhs as stated and the said amount must have been spent by him from his own sources and even might have borrowed the same by availing loan facilities.” While the court issued notice to the government on Pandith’s plea, seeking its response by March 5, it said: “In the meanwhile, it has become expedient in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs 10 lakh out of the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner with the Registry of this Tribunal by or before next date of hearing”.
