inkinccorporation@gmail.com Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rama Kant Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 31 January, 2026
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CWP-257-2019 1
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-257-2019
DECIDED ON:31.01.2026
RAMA KANT SHARMA
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
Prayer
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of calculation sheet dated
17.05.2018 (Annexure P-9) to the extent his medical reimbursement claim was
restricted to ₹1,38,422/- against the total bill of ₹3,54,647/-, and for a direction to
the respondents to reimburse the remaining amount of ₹2,16,225/- along with
interest.
Brief Facts
2. The petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer from the Irrigation & Water
Resources Department, Government of Haryana. In January 2018, while at Hisar,
he suffered a serious medical emergency and was admitted to Jindal Hospital,
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:30 :::
CWP-257-2019 2
Hisar, where his condition deteriorated and he went into coma. On medical advice,
he was shifted to Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, on 16.01.2018
and was admitted in the Emergency ICU. He was diagnosed with viral
meningoencephalitis and remained admitted till 25.01.2018. The total expenditure
incurred on his treatment at the said hospital amounted to ₹3,54,647/-.
3. The petitioner obtained an essentiality certificate from the hospital
and an emergency certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Gurugram, and thereafter
submitted his reimbursement claim along with requisite documents to the
competent authority. The respondents processed the claim in terms of Government
Memo dated 06.05.2005 governing reimbursement policy and sanctioned an
amount of ₹1,38,422/- calculated as per PGIMER/AIIMS rates, which was
credited to the petitioner’s bank account.
4. Aggrieved by the reduction, and upon obtaining the calculation sheet
dated 17.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
Contentions
On behalf of the petitioners
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned action
of the respondents in restricting the medical reimbursement to ₹1,38,422/- against
the actual expenditure of ₹3,54,647/- is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner, a
retired Chief Engineer, suffered a life-threatening medical emergency in January
2018, went into coma, and was initially admitted at Hisar. On the advice of doctors
and in order to save his life, he was immediately shifted to Fortis Memorial
Research Institute, Gurugram, where he remained admitted in the Emergency ICU
from 16.01.2018 to 25.01.2018 and was diagnosed with viral meningoencephalitis.
2 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 3
It is urged that the emergency nature of the treatment is not in dispute and stands
duly certified by the competent Civil Surgeon.
6. It is argued that in such emergent circumstances, neither the petitioner
nor his family members were in a position to ascertain whether the hospital was
empanelled with the State Government. The paramount consideration was
preservation of life. Learned counsel submits that the right to health and medical
care is an integral facet of Article 21, and once the factum of treatment and
emergency is established, reimbursement cannot be denied or curtailed on hyper-
technical grounds of empanelment.
7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, wherein in similar circumstances of
emergency treatment in a private hospital, the Apex Court directed reimbursement
of the balance amount, holding that the State cannot deny legitimate medical
claims of a government servant on technicalities. It is submitted that the ratio
squarely applies to the present case.
8. Learned counsel further contends that the respondents reduced the
claim mechanically to PGI/AIIMS rates without furnishing any prior notice,
hearing, or reasoned order to the petitioner. The calculation sheet (Annexure P-9)
was supplied only after recourse to the Right to Information Act. Such unilateral
reduction without affording opportunity violates principles of natural justice.
9. It is also urged that even as per the State policy, reimbursement in
cases of treatment in non-empanelled hospitals is permissible, and in earlier
decisions of this Court, reimbursement at PGI rates plus 75% of the remaining
amount has been directed. At the very least, the petitioner is entitled to
3 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 4
reimbursement in terms of such beneficial interpretation, especially when the
emergency is undisputed.
10. Learned counsel submits that a retired government servant, who has
devoted his entire service to the State, cannot be compelled to bear a substantial
portion of medical expenses incurred for life-saving treatment. The impugned
action defeats the very object of a welfare State and medical reimbursement
policy. It is therefore prayed that the impugned calculation sheet dated 17.05.2018
be quashed and the respondents be directed to reimburse the remaining amount
with interest.
On behalf of respondents
11. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s claim
has been processed strictly in accordance with the prevailing Reimbursement
Policy issued vide Government Memo dated 06.05.2005 and subsequent
instructions dated 24.06.2013. It is contended that as per the policy framework,
full reimbursement is admissible only for treatment taken in Government hospitals
or approved/empanelled institutions. In cases where treatment is taken in a non-
empanelled private hospital, even in emergency, reimbursement is restricted to
rates applicable to PGIMER/AIIMS, subject to verification by the Civil Surgeon.
12. It is argued that in the present case, although the emergency
certificate was verified, the treatment was admittedly taken in a private, non-
empanelled hospital, namely Fortis Memorial Research Institute. Therefore, the
competent authority rightly restricted the reimbursement to ₹1,38,422/- as per
PGI/AIIMS rates. The respondents have neither denied the claim nor rejected it
outright; rather, they have sanctioned the admissible amount under the applicable
rules.
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 5
13. Learned counsel submits that reimbursement of medical expenses is
governed by statutory instructions and executive policy. The petitioner cannot
claim reimbursement beyond the policy framework as a matter of right. The State
exchequer is involved, and financial discipline requires adherence to prescribed
rates and conditions. If full reimbursement were to be granted in all cases of
treatment in private hospitals, it would render the policy otiose and open
floodgates of claims.
14. It is further contended that there is no violation of Articles 14 or 16,
as the petitioner has been treated in the same manner as all similarly situated
employees or pensioners who avail treatment in non-empanelled hospitals. The
policy has been uniformly applied and there is no discrimination.
15. Distinguishing the reliance placed on “Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of
India“, learned counsel submits that the facts of each case must be examined in
light of the applicable policy of the concerned Government. The said judgment
does not lay down an absolute proposition that full reimbursement must be granted
in every case of private treatment, irrespective of policy conditions.
Analysis
16. The petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer of the Irrigation & Water
Resources Department of the State of Haryana, has invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
seeking quashing of the calculation sheet dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure P-9)
whereby his medical reimbursement claim was restricted to ₹1,38,422/- as against
the total expenditure of ₹3,54,647/-, and for a direction to the respondents to
reimburse the remaining sum of ₹2,16,225/- with interest.
5 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 6
17. It is not in dispute that in January 2018, while at Hisar, the petitioner
suddenly fell gravely ill and was admitted to a local hospital. His condition
deteriorated and he slipped into coma. On medical advice, he was shifted in the
early hours of 16.01.2018 to Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, where
he was admitted to the Emergency ICU. He was diagnosed with viral
meningoencephalitis, a life-threatening neurological condition. He remained
admitted till 25.01.2018 and the hospital raised a bill of ₹3,54,647/-, duly
supported by discharge summary, essentiality certificate and medical records. The
emergency nature of treatment stands certified by the Civil Surgeon, Gurugram.
18. The petitioner submitted his claim with all supporting documents and
the respondents, after processing the same, reimbursed ₹1,38,422/- calculated at
PGI/AIIMS rates in terms of Government policy dated 06.05.2005 read with
instructions dated 24.06.2013 applicable to treatment taken in non-empanelled
hospitals during emergency. The balance amount was declined without a speaking
order and the calculation sheet was supplied only after recourse to the Right to
Information Act.
19. The stand of the respondents is that reimbursement has been granted
strictly in accordance with policy, and since the treatment was taken in a non-
empanelled private hospital, full reimbursement is impermissible. However, what
amazes this Court is that neither is the emergency is not denied. Nor is the
treatment is not disputed but the only ground for curtailment is the non-
empanelled status of the hospital.
20. Thus, the issue which arises before this court is that whether, in a
case of admitted medical emergency involving coma and ICU admission, the
State can restrict reimbursement to notified rates under executive instructions?
6 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 7
21. The question is no longer confined to the realm of service
jurisprudence. It strikes at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the evolving doctrine of the right to health. The Constitution of our country does
not contemplate a hierarchy where executive memoranda supersede fundamental
rights.
Recognition of Right to Health as a Fundamental Right
22. This Court is fully cognizant of the wide and evolving contours of
Article 21 of the Constitution, which has, through judicial exposition, evolved into
an ever-expanding guarantee of substantive rights. The court in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India 1978 INSC 16, which transformed the “procedure established by
law” into a guarantee of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. The
jurisprudential journey thereafter has consistently expanded the content of “life” to
include dignity, health, and humane existence.
23. Also in “Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India
1995 (4) SCT 631″, the Supreme Court unequivocally declared that the right to
health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21. Relevant extract
of the same is under:
“Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical care is a
fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(c), 41 and 43 of
the Constitution and make the life of the workmen meaningful and
purposeful with dignity of person. Right to life includes protection of the
health and strength of the worker is a minimum requirement to enable a
person to live with human dignity. The State, be it Union or State
Government or an industry, pubic or private, is enjoined to take all such
actions which will promote health, strength and vigour of the workman
during the period of employment and leisure and health even after
retirement as basic essentiate to live the life with health and happiness. The
health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right to life. Denial
thereof denudes the workman the finer facets of life violating Article 21. The
right to human dignity, development of personality, social protection, right
to rest and leisure are fundamental human rights to a workman assured by7 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 8the Charter of Human Rights, in the Preamble and Articles 38 and 39 of the
Constitution. Facilities for medical care and health against sickness ensure
stable manpower for economic development and would generate devotion to
duty and dedication to give the workers’ best physically as well as mentally
in production of goods or services. Health of the worker enables him to
enjoy the fruit of his labour, keeping him physically fit and mentally alert for
leading a successful life, economically, socially and culturally. Medical
facilities to protect the health of the workers are, therefore, the fundamental
and human rights to the workmen.
27. Therefore, we hold that right to health, medical aid to protect the health
and vigour to a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental
right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related
Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman
meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person.”
24. Subsequently, in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of
West Bengal 1996 (4) SCC 37, it was held by the Supreme Court that failure to
provide timely emergency medical treatment constitutes a violation of Article 21
and that the State cannot avoid its responsibility on the plea of financial
constraints. The constitutional position is thus no longer in doubt as the Court
elevated emergency medical care to a constitutional obligation, and held that
preservation of life is a paramount obligation of the State, while observing that,
9. The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at
the federal level as well as at the state level. In a welfare state the
primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people.
Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential
part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare
state. The Government discharges this obligation by running
hospitals and health centres which provide medical care to the
persons seeking to avail those facilities. Article 21 imposes an
obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person.
Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The
Government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers
employed therein are duty bound of extend medical assistance for
preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government hospital
to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such
treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under
Article 21
8 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 9
25. The Supreme Court while holding that preservation of human life is
of paramount importance, in “Parmanand Katara v. Union of India 1995 (3)
SCC 248”, observed that no procedural law or technicality can stand in the way of
human dignity and stated as under,
4. We agree with the petitioner that right to dignity and fair treatment
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not only available to a
living man but also to his body after his death. According to us, the
only requirement of the above-quoted para of the Manual is that the
body of the condemned prisoner shall only remain suspended till the
time the medical officer, present on the spot, declares him dead. We
make it clear and hold that the jail authorities in the country shall not
keep the body of any condemned prisoner suspended after the medical
officer has declared the person to be dead. The limitation of half an
hour mentioned in para 873 is directory and is only a guideline. The
only mandatory part of the above-quoted para is that the condemned
person has to be declared dead by the medical officer and as soon as
it is done the body has to be released from the rope.
Evolution of Medical Reimbursement Jurisprudence
26. The doctrine relating to reimbursement in emergency situations has
crystallised through authoritative pronouncements. In “Surjit Singh v. State of
Punjab 1996 (2) SCT 234″, the Supreme Court rejected the denial of
reimbursement on technical grounds where treatment was taken in a non-approved
hospital during emergency. In “State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla 1997
(1) SCT 716″, it was held by the Supreme Court that the State is constitutionally
obligated to bear medical expenses of its employees, the right to health being
integral to life itself, while observing that,
Consequently, when the patient was admitted and had taken the
treatment in the hospital and had incurred the expenditure towards
room charges, inevitably the consequential rent paid for the room
during his stay is integral part of his expenditure incurred for the
treatment. Consequently the Government is required to reimburse the
expenditure incurred for the period during which the patient stayed in
the approved hospital for treatment. It is incongruous that while the
patient is admitted to undergo treatment and he is refused the
9 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 10
reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred towards room rent
and is given the expenditure of the room rent chargeable in another
institute whereat he had not actually undergone treatment. Under
these circumstances, the contention of the State Government is
obviously untenable and incongruous.
27. Also the Apex Court in “State of Punjab vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga
1998 (1) SCT 761″, observed that,
“21. When we speak about a right, it correlates to a duty upon
another, individual, employer, Government or authority. In other
words, the right of one is an obligation of another. Hence the right of
a citizen to live under Article 21 casts obligation on the State. This
obligation is further reinforced under Article 47; it is for the State to
secure health to its citizen as its primary duty. No doubt Government
is rendering this obligation by opening Government hospitals and
health centres, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within
the reach of its people, as far as possible, reduce the queue of waiting
lists, and it has to provide all facilities for which an employee looks
for at another hospital. Its up-keep, maintenance and cleanliness has
to be beyond aspersion. To employ best of talents and tone up its
administration to give effective contribution. Also bring in awareness
in welfare of hospital staff for their dedicated service, give them
periodical medico-ethical and service-oriented training, not only at
the entry point but also during the whole tenure of their service. Since
it is one of the most sacrosanct and valuable rights of a citizen and
equally sacrosanct sacred obligation of the State, every citizen of this
welfare State looks towards the State for it to perform this obligation
with top priority including by way allocation of sufficient funds. This
in turn will not only secure the right of its citizens to the best of their
satisfaction but in turn will benefit the State in achieving its social,
political and economical goal. For every return there has to be
investment. Investment needs resources and finances. So even to
protect this sacrosanct right, finances are an inherent requirement.
Harnessing such resources needs top priority.”
28. The culmination of this evolution is found in “Shiva Kant Jha v.
Union of India 2018 (2) SCT 529″, wherein the Supreme Court held in clear and
unambiguous terms that a government employee or pensioner cannot be denied
reimbursement merely because treatment was obtained in a non-empanelled
hospital during emergency. The Court emphasised that technicalities cannot defeat
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 11
life-saving decisions and that reimbursement must be real and meaningful, not
illusory. Relevant extract of the same is as under:
13. It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during
his life time 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 specialized in a discipline are availed by patients
only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that
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 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 cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly,
in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials
of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full
to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court.
14. This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. The relevant
authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a
mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate
reimbursement.
29. The legal position post-Shiva Kant Jha admits of no ambiguity,
emergency medical treatment obtained in a non-empanelled hospital, when duly
verified, entitles the claimant to reimbursement that is fair, reasonable, and not
merely symbolic. Administrative convenience cannot eclipse the right to life and a
welfare State must act with sensitivity and fairness when confronted with genuine
medical claims.
11 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 12
Self Preservation – a facet of Right to Life
30. Otherwise also, it is important to bear in mind that self preservation of
one’s life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable.
The principle that a person possesses both a duty and a right to preserve one’s own
life finds clear expression in the doctrine of private defence recognised in criminal
jurisprudence. The law, in acknowledging the legitimacy of self-defence, reflects a
far older moral and philosophical understanding that self-preservation is intrinsic
to human existence. Long before the evolution of modern legal systems, thinkers
of this ancient land had articulated and affirmed this principle. In that context,
reference may be made to verses 17, 18, 20 and 22 of Chapter XVI of the Garuda
Purana, presented as a dialogue between the Divine and Garuda, the holy and
pious bird, wherein the sanctity of life and the imperative of protecting oneself are
emphatically underscored.
Without the body how can one obtain the
objects of human life ? Therefore protecting
17. िवना दे हेन क ािप च पु षाथ न िव ते। the body which is the wealth, one should
त ाद् दे हं धनं र ेत् पु कमा िण साधयेत्॥ perform the deeds of merit.
One should protect his body which is
responsible for everything. He who protects
18. र येत् सव दा!ानम् आ!ा सव भाजनम्। himself by all efforts, will see many
र णे य%माित&े त् जीवन् भ(ािण प)ित॥ auspicious occasions in life.
The wise always undertake the protective
measures for the body. Even the persons
20. शरीरर णोपायाः ि-य.े सव दा बुधैः । suffering from leprosy and other diseases
ने12. च पुन3ागमिप कु&ािदरोिगणः ॥ do not wish to get rid of the body.
If one does not prevent what is unpleasent
22. आ!ैव यिद ना!ानम् अिहते6ो िनवारयेत्।
to himself, who else will do it? Therefore
कः अ7ः िहतकर8 ात् आ!ानं तारिय9ित॥
one should do what is good to himself.
31. In the present case, the petitioner was in coma. He was not exercising
choice but was fighting for survival. His wife, in an hour of acute distress, acted
12 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 13
upon medical advice and shifted him to a facility equipped to handle a
neurological emergency. To expect, in such a moment, a verification of
empanelment lists or rate charts is to demand bureaucratic compliance from the
brink of mortality.
32. One also cannot lose sight of factual situation in the Government
medical facilities i.e. with respect to the number of patients received there. In such
an urgency one cannot sit at home and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for
getting medical treatment at a particular hospital or wait for admission in some
Government medical institute. In such a situation, decision has to be taken
forthwith by the person or his attendants if precious life has to be saved.
Restriction Reimbursement to PGI / Notified Rates in Emergencies
33. This court finds it necessary to express our considered disapproval of
the mechanical practice adopted by the respondents in restricting reimbursement
to PGI/CGHS notified rates irrespective of the actual expenditure incurred in a
life-threatening emergency. Such an approach, when applied inflexibly, transforms
a constitutional entitlement into a bureaucratic concession. The right under Article
21 is not a right to partial survival but a right to meaningful preservation of life
and dignity. In moments of cardiac arrest, multi-organ trauma, or acute
neurological crisis, neither the patient nor the attending relatives are in a position
to negotiate rates, compare institutional tariffs, or seek prior administrative
sanction. To subsequently reimburse only a fraction of the expenditure by applying
institutional rate ceilings amounts to penalizing the citizen for choosing survival
over procedure.
34. Though executive policy is undoubtedly binding upon the
administration, but it cannot eclipse constitutional guarantees. Policies are
13 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 14
instruments of governance, they are not fetters upon justice. When a policy,
applied mechanically, produces a result that undermines the right to life and
health, constitutional courts must interpret it with reasonableness and equity.
35. Moreover, a retired government servant, who has devoted his life to
public service, cannot be left to shoulder a substantial financial burden arising out
of life-saving treatment merely because the advised medical facility happened to
be a non-empanelled hospital. Social security in old age is not an act of grace, it is
a constitutional expectation flowing from the idea of a welfare State.
36. There is yet another dimension which merits articulation. Every
executive policy must remain in consonance with the constitutional ethos. The
Preamble of the Constitution begins with the solemn resolve of “We, the People of
India.” thereby meaning that sovereignty ultimately resides in the citizen and the
policies framed for administrative convenience or fiscal prudence must operate
within the broad canopy of constitutional morality. When a policy, though valid in
general application, produces hardship in exceptional situations of medical
emergency, it is incumbent upon the State to revisit and recalibrate it. The right to
health – as a facet of Article 21, demands that reimbursement frameworks
incorporate flexibility for genuine emergencies so that constitutional promises do
not wither in procedural rigidity.
Our Goal towards Viksit Bharat 2047
37. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the solemn and collective
resolve of the nation to attain the status of a developed country by the year 2047.
A developed nation is not defined merely by economic metrics but by the social
security, public health assurance, and opportunity of dignified ageing offered by it
to it’s citizens.
14 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 15
38. The vision of a Viksit Bharat 2047 cannot rest on GDP alone as
human capital is the backbone of national productivity and the right to health, as
judicially recognized, is an essential component of human capital. India’s
constitutional architecture, particularly Articles 21, 14, 38, 41 and 47 of the
Constitution, envisions a social order in which the State assumes responsibility for
the health and well-being of its people. In reaffirming that medical reimbursement
in bona fide emergencies flows from Article 21, this Court underscores that
constitutional commitment to health security is integral to national progress. A
developed India must be one where preservation of life is non-negotiable, where
administrative systems respond with humanity, and where constitutional promises
translate into lived protection. Only then does development attain constitutional
meaning.
39. To deny reimbursement in life-threatening emergency is to erode this
constitutional trust. Fiscal discipline is undoubtedly important however, economic
progress divorced from social justice cannot sustain democratic development. The
true index of development lies in whether the State stands beside its citizens at
their most fragile moments or shrugs away from responsibility under the garb of
an executive policy. A developed democracy must ensure that its public servants
are not compelled to choose between survival and financial ruin.
40. Before parting, this Court considers it appropriate to crystallize
certain governing principles which emerge from the constitutional scheme and
judicial precedents, that executive policies regulating reimbursement must be
interpreted in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. Where two
interpretations are possible, the one that advances preservation of life must prevail
and in cases of certified life-threatening medical emergency, the empanelment
status of the hospital cannot be the sole ground to deny or substantially curtail
15 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
CWP-257-2019 16
reimbursement once the factum of treatment and emergency stands established and
is supported by medical records.
Conclusion
41. Therefore, in view of the discussion made herein above, this court is
of the opinion that, in the present case, the calculation sheet dated 17.05.2018
(Annexure P-9), insofar as it limits reimbursement to ₹1,38,422/-, is not
sustainable in law and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to
reimburse the remaining amount of ₹2,16,225/- to the petitioner within four weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The amount shall
carry interest @ 9% per annum from 25.01.2018 (the date of discharge) till actual
payment.
42. However, this court takes note of the systemic issue wherein the
pensioners and employees are compelled to approach constitutional courts to
recover expenses incurred in life-saving emergencies. The State Government
should consider revisiting the existing medical reimbursement policy to
incorporate a mechanism for full or substantially reimbursement in certified life-
threatening emergencies, even when treatment is taken in a non-empanelled
hospital. Such a reform would reduce litigation, promote trust in governance, and
align administrative practice with constitutional morality.
43. The present petition is allowed in the above terms.
44. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
31.01.2026 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 20:57:31 :::
