Abhimanue Shrishtha, Mr. Raj Lakshmi Singh and Ms. Vidushi Srivastava, Advocates v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Judgment

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following prayers:- “a) Issue an appropriate Writ or an order/direction to the Department of Health and Family Welfare to reimburse the Petitioner’s claim of Rs. 10,03,636 (Rupees ten lakh three Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:17.10.2025 18:49:42 W.P.(C) 4658/2019 thousand six hundred and thirty six only) at the Dollar rate prevalent in 2011 only; and b) pass any such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, a retired Indian Police Service Officer, raising grievance that he has been denied reimbursement of medical expenses in USA under emergency condition. He challenges the stand of the respondent, who has denied his claim on the ground that retired government officials/personnel are not eligible to get treatment abroad either under Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS)1 or under Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 19442.

3. The case of the petitioner is as under: -

3.1. The Petitioner, an IPS Officer, superannuated on 31.01.1994 as

Director General, BSF. He is also recipient of Padma Shri Award in year 1991 for his contribution to Civil Service. He has also been awarded Police Medal for Meritorious Service and Police Medal for Distinguished Services by the Government of India.

3.2. The Petitioner was visiting his son in Chicago, USA during 15th June, 2011 to 5th July, 2011. On 4th July, 2011, he had to be admitted in emergency at Rush University Medical Centre, Chicago, USA with 1 For short, “CGHS” 2 For short, “CS (MA) Rules” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:17.10.2025 18:49:42 W.P.(C) 4658/2019 complaint of “slurred speech, altered mental status and fever”. He remained admitted in the said hospital from 5th July, 2011 to 8th July,

2011. He was diagnosed with “herpes simplex encephalitis”. During that period, he had to incur USD 20,449.00 (INR 10,03,636 ($ 49.08)) on hospital bills and other medical expenses. (Emergency Medical Treatment Certificate @ Pg. 25 to 27)

3.3. After returning to India, he submitted his claim alongwith all the bills to the Director General, Medical & Health Services, Union of India, seeking reimbursement, but his claim was denied on the ground that “facility of treatment abroad is available under Rule 11 of CCS (MA) Rules for serving Central Government employees. However, pensioners are not eligible to get treatment abroad neither under CGHS nor under CS (MA) Rules”.

3.4. Therefore, even though it was admitted by the Respondents that the Government Servants are entitled to “treatment abroad”, but the Petitioner was denied the said entitlement on the ground that he is “retired”. Such a distinction, on the face of it, is violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution. As such, the rules do not draw any such distinction between “serving” and “retired” government servants.

3.5. There are various judgments in which it has been held that no distinction can be made between the “serving” and “retired” government servants, while considering their entitlement for medical Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:17.10.2025 18:49:42 W.P.(C) 4658/2019 treatment. In fact, in another set of judgments it has been held that no fetters of any kind be imposed in providing medical facility to the retired government servants.

3.6. In the Counter Affidavit filed on 02.07.2019, the Respondents have taken the same stand. They have also filed Additional Affidavit on 11.10.2019, placing on record the Guidelines and the Office Memorandum, pertaining to the entitlement of a pensioner CGHS but none of these Guidelines or Office Memorandum address the issue of medical treatment availed abroad, especially in an emergency situation.

3.7 The government servants (serving or retired) are entitled to receive medical treatment or the reimbursement under the provisions of CS (MA) Rules. Rule 11 of the CS (MA) Rules provides for the medical treatment abroad to the Government Servant, obviously, with prior permission, but Rule 11(7) of the Rules, also provides for the post facto approval, which would be applicable in case the treatment is received in an emergency. The Respondents having admitted that the government servant’s entitlement to receive medical reimbursement is under the provisions of the CS (MA) Rules, and bare reading of the said Rules show that there can’t be any distinction in serving or retired government servant. Therefore, the reliance on any scheme, guideline or office memorandums, making arbitrary classification between serving and retired government servants, is misconceived, including in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:17.10.2025 18:49:42 W.P.(C) 4658/2019 case of treatment abroad. It is settled that the scheme/guideline/OM cannot override/go beyond the statutory provisions. A similar argument of the Union of India has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India3.

3.8. The provisions of Rule 11(7) of CS (MA) Rules do not make any distinction between the serving and retired government servant even in the case of reimbursement for medical treatment abroad, still the Respondents in their Written Submissions, without placing on record any material tried to justify their denial, by claiming that “the petitioner’s case does not meet these criteria” provided under Rule 11(7) of the CCS (MA) Rules.

3.9. In this regard, the attention of this Hon’ble Court was drawn to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.4, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention