Kerala High Court
Anil Bose.A vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 1 2026:KER:46071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 501 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 IN O.A.NO.597 OF 2021 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
ANIL BOSE.A.
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.ALOSIOUS, RETIRED P.D. TEACHER,
GOVERNMENT L.P.SCHOOL, PARUVA,
MANNADISALA.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA -686511,
RESIDING AT ANIL BHAVAN (VAZHETH),
NARANMMOZHI.P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689711
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SHRI.BABU V.P.
SHRI.SHAHBAS AMAN C.M.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 2 2026:KER:46071
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
4 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PATHANAMTHITTA, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
6 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689672
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 3 2026:KER:46071
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.No.597 of 2021
on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at
Thiruvananthapuram, has filed the original application, invoking
the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that the applicant is eligible and
entitled to get reimbursement of his medical claims, as he
underwent medical treatment in a hospital not approved by the
Government because of emergency; to set aside Annexure A6
communication No.L1/419/2019-GED dated 27.08.2020 issued by
the 3rd respondent, Secretary to Government, General Education
Department, rejecting the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of
medical expenses; and to direct the respondents to sanction and
disburse the claim of the made by the applicant for medical
reimbursement, by reconsidering his application. Along with the
original application, the applicant has placed on record Annexures
A1 to A7.
2. In O.A.No.597 of 2021, the 1st respondent State filed
Ext.P3 reply statement dated 11.10.2021, opposing the reliefs
sought for. The applicant filed Ext.P4 rejoinder dated 15.12.2021.
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 4 2026:KER:46071
3. After considering the rival contentions with reference
to Rule 7 and Rule 7A of the Kerala Government Servants’ Medical
Attendance Rules, 1960, the Tribunal, by Ext.P1 order dated
15.03.2024, dismissed O.A.No.597 of 2021. Paragraphs 9 to 11
and also the last paragraph of Ext.P1 order read thus;
“9. It is clear from the reading of Rule 7 that it is applicable
to the cases where the Government employee was stationed
or travelling on duty outside the State. Since the applicant
was not stationed or travelling on duty outside the State,
this Rule does not come to his rescue.
10. As regards Rule 7A, reimbursement for special
treatment outside the State is admissible only if prior
sanction of the Director of Health Services (DHS) has been
taken, as also, the conditions stated therein have been
fulfilled/certified by the DHS. The applicant’s case does not
fulfill these criteria as well. Hence, Rule 7A too won’t help
the applicant’s cause.
11. We also note that there is no material on record to
suggest that there was any intimation to the head of office
or the head of department either before proceeding to
Bangalore or during the period of his stay/hospitalisation at
Bangalore. Similarly, there is no material on record to throw
light on whether any leave permission was taken for a
private visit outside the State.
In view of the foregoing discussion and given the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the
applicant is not entitled for medical reimbursement for
treatment availed outside the State while on a private visit.
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 5 2026:KER:46071
As a result, the Original Application fails and is accordingly
dismissed.”
4. Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 15.03.2024 of the
Tribunal in O.A.No.597 of 2021, the petitioner-applicant is before
this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. On 05.01.2026, when this original petition came up for
admission, the matter was admitted on file. The learned Senior
Government Pleader took notice for the respondents.
6. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader
for the respondents.
7. The issue that requires consideration in this original
petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1
order dated 15.03.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.597 of 2021, in
exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would
contend that Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal is one issued without
properly considering the legal and factual contentions raised by
the applicant. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order is
perverse and patently illegal, which warrants interference in this
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 6 2026:KER:46071
original petition, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1
order, after taking note of the relevant provisions contained in
Kerala Government Servants’ Medical Attendance Rules, 1960, is
neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference by
this Court, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
10. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power
of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause
(1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have
superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
11. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 7 2026:KER:46071
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
12. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a ‘bull in a china shop’, to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 8 2026:KER:46071
13. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court
held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can
interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there
has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and
courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice
have been flouted.
14. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 9 2026:KER:46071
15. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in
the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of
its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can
be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative
Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant
abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no
interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court
finds that the Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest
error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently
unreasonable, or the decision of the Tribunal is in direct conflict
with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice
have been flouted.
16. The petitioner-applicant retired from service on
31.05.2025, while working as a P.D. Teacher in the Government
Lower Primary School, Paruva, Pathanamthitta district. In the
original application, the applicant’s case was that, while in service,
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 10 2026:KER:46071
he went to Bangalore, along with his family, on 18.12.2018 for
personal reasons, after availing casual leave. He had a stroke
(Colloid Cyst) while staying in a hotel at Bennerghatta, and was
immediately taken to the nearby hospital, i.e., Fortis Hospital. He
had a previous history of stroke and surgery on the brain. As the
applicant’s condition was serious, he was admitted to the
Emergency Department, where he had undergone surgery on the
brain (Navigation Guided Left Fronto Parietal Craniotomy and
Excision of Recurrent/Residual Colloid Cyst). He underwent
inpatient treatment in that hospital till 22.12.2018. Annexure A1
is the discharge summary dated 22.12.2018, issued by Fortis
Hospital, and Annexure A2 is the essentiality certificate dated
27.12.2018, issued by the Consultant Neurosurgeon, Fortis
Hospital. As per Annexure A3, the inpatient bill dated 22.12.2018,
issued by Fortis Hospital, the applicant had spent a sum of
Rs.4,04,435/- for treatment at Fortis Hospital.
17. In Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India [(2018) 16
SCC 187], in the context of reimbursement of medical claim
under Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) for treatment
availed in emergency circumstances in non-empanelled hospitals,
the Apex Court held that, it is a settled legal position that the
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 11 2026:KER:46071
Government employee during his service or after his retirement
is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters
can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that
ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only
with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic
qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the
patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the
ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for
treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialised
in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper,
required and safe treatment. On the question as to whether taking
treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person
to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital
is not included in the Government order, the Apex Court held
that the right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because
the name of the hospital is not included in the Government order.
The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical
claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as
to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the
factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by
Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once it is established, the claim
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 12 2026:KER:46071
cannot be denied on technical grounds.
18. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner-applicant would place reliance on the decision of
a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Nisha Elias
[2026 KHC OnLine 1890].
19. In Nisha Elias [2026 KHC OnLine 1890], the
Division Bench, in which both of us are parties, was dealing with
a case in which it was not in dispute that the respondent-petitioner
had actually undergone treatment at Christian Medical College,
Vellore, for the period from 10.11.2022 to 24.11.2022 and from
15.12.2022 to 01.01.2023, and the factum of treatment in the
Department of Haematology is supported by Ext.P1 receipt dated
24.11.2022, Ext.P2 discharge summary dated 01.01.2023 and
Ext.P3 receipt dated 10.01.2023. Following the law laid down by
the Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha [(2018) 16 SCC 187], this
Court held that, when there no dispute as to the treatment which
had undergone by the respondent-petitioner at Christian Medical
College, Vellore and the factum of treatment is supported by
Exts.P1 to P3 receipts/discharge summary, the claim for medical
reimbursement made by the respondent cannot be denied on
technical grounds, by stating that all departments of Christian
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 13 2026:KER:46071
Medical College, Vellore, were included for the purpose of medical
reimbursement of Government employees, only by Government
order dated 13.03.2023.
20. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner-applicant had actually undergone treatment in a private
hospital, namely, Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, in December 2018,
since he had a stroke (Colloid Cyst) while staying in a hotel at
Bennerghatta. He had a previous history of stroke and surgery on
the brain. Since his condition was serious, he was admitted to the
Emergency Department, where he had undergone surgery on the
brain (Navigation Guided Left Fronto Parietal Craniotomy and
Excision of Recurrent/Residual Colloid Cyst). He underwent
inpatient treatment in that hospital till 22.12.2018, which is
evident from Annexure A1 discharge summary dated 22.12.2018
and Annexure A2 essentiality certificate dated 27.12.2018. As per
Annexure A3 inpatient bill dated 22.12.2018 he had spent a sum
of Rs.4,04,435/- for treatment at Fortis Hospital.
21. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand,
taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shiva Kant
Jha [(2018) 16 SCC 187], the Tribunal ought not to have
dismissed the original application, declining the claim for medical
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 14 2026:KER:46071
reimbursement for the treatment availed by the petitioner-
applicant, outside the State, in emergency circumstances, in a
non-empanelled hospital.
In the above circumstances, the reasoning of the Tribunal in
Ext.P1 order dated 15.03.2024 in O.A.No.597 of 2021 cannot be
sustained in law. In the result, this original petition is disposed of
by setting aside Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal and the competent
among the respondents are directed to reimburse the eligible
amount payable to the petitioner-applicant towards medical
reimbursement, for the treatment he had availed at Fortis
Hospital, Bangalore, covered by Annexure A3 inpatient bill dated
22.12.2018, which is supported by Annexure A1 discharge
summary dated 22.12.2018 and Annexure A2 essentiality
certificate dated 27.12.2018, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
O.P.(KAT)No.501 of 2025 15 2026:KER:46071
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 501 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM
FORTIS HOSPITALS LIMITED, BANGALORE DATED
22/12/2018
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY DR.RAJAKUMAR.D.V., CONSULTANT NEURO
SURGEON, FORTIS HOSPITALS LIMITED, BANGALORE
DATED 27/12/2018
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF INPATIENT BILL ISSUED FROM
FORTIS HOSPITALS LIMITED, BANGALORE DATED
22/12/2018
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.184/2017/H&FWD DATED
15/12/2017
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/1/2019
GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH THE
APPLICATION FORM FOR MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT
AND CHECK-LIST FURNISHED BY 5TH RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.L1/419/2019-
GED DATED 27/8/2020 TO 4TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 5/1/2021 OF
6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/3/2024 IN
OA.NO.597/ 2021 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF OA.NO.597/ 2021 ON THE FILE OF
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT OF 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
