Gujarat High Court

Yogesh Mafatlal Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2025

Author: Bhargav D. Karia

Bench: Bhargav D. Karia

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/LPA/1263/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1263 of 2025

                                                          In
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19207 of 2022


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                       Yes           No
                                                                                             ✓
                      ==========================================================
                                                   YOGESH MAFATLAL BAROT
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR LAKSHIT V PATEL FOR MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the
                      Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                                                           Date : 27/11/2025

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Lakshit V.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

Patel for learned advocate Mr. H.B.

Champavat for the petitioner, learned

advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent

no.2 and learned Assistant Government

Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the

respondent State.

2. Having regard to the controversy

involved which is in a narrow compass,

With the consent of the learned advocates

for the respective parties, the matter is

taken up for hearing at the admission

stage. Hence, Admit. Learned advocate Mr.

H.S. Munshaw waives service of notice of

rule on behalf of the respondent no.2

Corporation and learned Assistant

Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve

waives service of notice of rule on behalf

of the respondent State.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

3. Brief facts of the case are that the

appellant-original petitioner was working

with the respondent Corporation and

suffered heart problem due to which he was

admitted to Hetal Heartcare Hospital

wherein after treatment, he was discharged

on 02.06.2016. It is the case of the

appellant-petitioner that he was advised

for angiography and bypass as the future

course of action by the concerned doctor.

4. The appellant accordingly got admitted

in U.N. Mehta hospital on 07.06.2016 and

angiography was performed and was

discharged on 09.06.2016 with a report of

block artery.

5. Subsequently, the appellant petitioner

got admitted to SAL hospital, Ahmedabad on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

15.06.2016 for bypass surgery.

6. The appellant petitioner therefore,

incurred Rs.22,914/- for the medical

treatment at Hetal Heartcare Hospital,

Rs.7,868/- for treatment at U.N. Mehta

Hospital and Rs.1,83,108/- for bypass

surgery at SAL Hospital, totalling to

Rs.2,13,890/-.

7. The appellant petitioner submitted the

bills for reimbursement with the

respondent corporation. However, the

respondent partially cleared the bill on

02.09.2016 for meager amount of Rs.

69,925/- and amount of Rs. 1,45,965/- was

not cleared and paid to the appellant.

8. The appellant thereafter due to his

ill-health gave application for voluntary

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

retirement after completion of notice

period and by office order dated

30.11.2016, the application for voluntary

retirement was accepted and the appellant

was deemed retired from 30.11.2016

onwards.

9. Thereafter, it is the case of the

appellant that several oral requests were

made for clearing the outstanding amount

of Rs. 1,45,965/-. However, the respondent

Corporation did not clear the same.

Therefore, notice dated 1.06.2017 was

issued through advocate calling upon the

respondent corporation to pay the

remaining amount of medical bills

submitted by the appellant.

10. The appellant thereafter preferred

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

Recovery Application No.48/2017 before the

Labour Court at Mehsana under section

33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 for recovery of Rs. 1,45,965/- with

interest at the rate of 18% per annum from

the respondent authority.

11. The Labour Court after considering the

documents placed on record and providing

opportunity of hearing to both the sides,

by order dated 21.04.2022 rejected the

Recovery Application No. 48/2017.

12. The appellant therefore, being

aggrieved preferred Special Civil

Application before this Court challenging

the order of the Labour Court as the

Labour Court has relied upon resolution

dated 20.12.2005 issued by the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

corporation for rejecting the recovery

claim made by the appellant.

13. Learned Single Judge by the impugned

judgment and order dated 31.01.2025

dismissed the petition on the ground that

the respondent corporation has followed

its policy for reimbursement of the

medical expenses and as per various

decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, scope of

judicial review while examining the policy

of the Government is very limited and the

policy can be interfered if it violates

the fundamental rights of the citizen or

is opposed to provision of the

Constitution or is opposed to any

statutory provision or is manifestly

arbitrary.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

14. Being aggrieved, this appeal under

clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed

by the appellant original petitioner.

15. Learned advocate Mr. Lakshit V. Patel

for learned advocate Mr. H.B. Champavat

for the appellant original petitioner

submitted that the respondent corporation

has not disputed that the appellant has

availed the treatment for his bypass

surgery from SAL hospital which is

admittedly a recognised hospital in the

approved list of the respondent

Corporation.

16. It was submitted that the reliance

placed by the respondent Corporation on

the policy dated 20.12.2005 in the year

2016 is unreasonable and the amount of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

Rs. 60,000/- stated in the said policy

cannot be applied in the year 2016 when

the appellant took the treatment in SAL

hospital for which medical bill of Rs.

1,83,108/- is issued by the Hospital which

is not in dispute.

17. In support of his submissions,

reliance was placed on the following

decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well

as this Court:

1) In case of Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of

India reported in (2018) 16 Supreme Court

Cases 187.

2) In case of Chandrakant Kantilal Dave

v. State of Gujarat reported in 2019(1)

GLR 653.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

3) In case of KP Singh v. Union of India

reported in (2001) 10 SCC 167.

18. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. H.S.

Munshaw appearing for the respondent

Corporation reiterated the submissions

made before the learned Single Judge to

emphasize that as the policy suggests that

for the heart problem, the rules provide

medical reimbursement upto Rs.60,000/-,

and therefore, respondent Corporation

following such policy has cleared such

amount and paid to the appellant. It was

submitted that the respondent corporation

is bound by its own policy and therefore,

could not pay the amount of actual medical

expenses incurred by the appellant

petitioner because as per the circular

dated 20.12.2005, the appellant was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

entitled to Rs. 60,000/- only which is

released towards Coronary Artery Bypass

Grafting treatment. It was submitted that

the respondent corporation has also

sanctioned the bill for medicines and

accordingly, sum of Rs.67,925/- is paid to

the appellant.

19. It was submitted that learned Single

Judge has not committed any error in view

of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi

Administration and others reported in

(2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 635 wherein

it is held that in exercise of powers

under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution, the Courts would not

ordinarily interfere in the policy matters

and in view of decision in case of

Directorate of Film Festivals and others

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others reported

in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 737 as

referred to and relied upon by the learned

Single Judge. It was therefore, submitted

that no interference is called for in the

impugned judgment and order passed by

learned Single Judge dismissing the

petition filed by the petitioner upholding

the order of the Labour Court in Recovery

Application No.48/2017.

20. Having heard the learned advocates for

the respective parties and considering the

facts of the case, it is not in dispute

that the appellant petitioner has

undergone the bypass surgery in the month

of June, 2016 after suffering heart attack

on getting preliminary treatment on

02.06.2016 at Mehsana from Hetal Heartcare

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

Hospital. The appellant thereafter has

undergone angiography at U.N. Mehta

hospital and bypass surgery at SAL

hospital, as both the hospitals are

recognised and approved by the respondent

corporation for reimbursement of the

medical expenses.

21. The respondent corporation has also

not disputed the veracity of the medical

bills of Rs.2,13,890/- submitted by the

appellant petitioner.

22. Therefore, the questions which arise

for consideration by this Court is whether

the respondent corporation could have

referred to and relied upon the policy of

20.12.2005 in the year 2016 and whether

reliance on such policy would be a

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

reasonable criteria for clearing the

medical bills by denying the actual

reimbursement of the medical expenses

incurred by the appellant petitioner for

bypass surgery in the year 2016.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ugar

Sugar Works Ltd.(supra) with regard to

policy decision has held as under:

"18. The challenge, thus, in effect, is to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to Judgement of the executive. The Courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State.

xxx

21. In the present case the executive policy regulating the sale of liquor in the territory of Delhi is sought to be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is 'unfair' and 'unreasonable' besides being 'authority' and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. We are unable to agree.

22. The State has every right to regulate the supply of liquor within its terrotorial jurisdiction to ensure that what is supplied is 'liquor of good quality' in the interest of health, morals and welfare of the people. One of the modes for determining that the quality of liquor is a 'good' is to ascertain whether that particular brand of liquor has been tested and tried

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

extensively elsewhere and has found its acceptability in other States. The manner in which the Government chooses to ascertain the factor of higher acceptability, must in the very nature of things, fall within the discretion of the Government so long as the discretion is not exercised mala fide, unreasonably or arbitrarily. The allegations of mala fide made in the writ petition are totally bereft of any factual matrix and we, therefore, do not detain ourselves at all to consider challenge on that ground. In fairness to learned counsel for the petitioner we may record that challenge to notification on grounds of mala fide was not pressed during arguments. Laying down requirement of achieving minimum sale figures of a particular brand of liquor in other States, as a mode for determination of the "acceptability" of that brand of liquor, is neither irrelevant, nor irrational or unreasonable. It appears that prescription of MSF requirement is aimed at allowing sale of only such brands of liquor which have been tested, tried and found acceptable at large in other parts of the country.

xxx

25. Though, we are not required to test the correctness of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

'reason' for increase of MSF over the previous years' figures, but it is relevant to point out that increase of sale from 60,000 cases to 75,000 cases in respect of 'lowest price tag' brand of liquor does not appear to be arbitrary and on the other hand it appears to have a rational basis. Economic mechanism is a highly sensitive and a complex matter. With inflation every year, it goes without saying, that the brand which has the "lowest price tag"

this year, was perhaps not the brand which had the "lowest price tag last year". It is possible that the brand 'with lowest price tag' this year may not be of that good quality as the brand with identical price tag last year, even though it may conform to ISI standards. It was, therefore, reasonable for the State to find out whether that particular brand with the lowest price tag this year, had been tested and tried elsewhere and had been accepted largely by the public in other parts of India to determine if that particular brand of liquor can be considered to liquor of good quality keeping the health and welfare of the public in view. The impugned notification in our opinion furthers the object of providing good liquor having larger acceptability. The policy

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

is made in the interest of health, welfare and morals to benefit all citizens of Delhi and not the big industrial houses as alleged. Determination of wide scale acceptability on the basis of revised national sales figures (MSF) does not strike us as being unreasonable let alone irrational, arbitrary or unfair. Under these circumstances there is no justifiable reason warranting interference with the impugned notification. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs."

24. On perusal of the above dictum of law

as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court we

have to examine whether the policy relied

upon by the Corporation can be faulted on

the ground of unreasonableness or not.

Admittedly, the policy is of year 2005

which is applied by the respondent

Corporation in the year 2016 and

therefore, on face of it, it is

unreasonable to apply the rates fixed in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

the year 2005 in 2016.

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further

observed that the respondent has every

right to regulate and frame the policy,

however such policy can be considered only

on the ground of unfairness and

unreasonableness. It is also pertinent to

note that in facts of the case before the

Hon'ble Apex Court, the policy of sale of

liquor was in question and not a policy of

reimbursement of medical expenses which is

in nature of a benevolent policy and

therefore, reliance placed by the

petitioners on the decisions of Hon'ble

Apex Court would not be applicable to the

facts of the case, which clearly

stipulates that when the policy is

unreasonable, same can be interfered by

the Court. Similarly, in case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

Directorate of Film Festivals and

others(supra), while considering the scope

of judicial review in policy matters, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. vide :

Asif Hameed V/s. State of J&K, 1989 Supp2 SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., V/s. Union of India, 1990 3 SCC 223; Khoday

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

Distilleries V/s. State of Karnataka, 1996 10 SCC 304, Balco Employees Union V/s. Union of India, 2002 2 SCC 333, State of Orissa V/s. Gopinath Dash, 2005 13 SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 4 SCC 162.

17. The Government's policy for National Film Awards is to restrict entry to only those films which have been certified by the Board for exhibition, that is films intended for public exhibition. The government is not interested in evaluating or giving an award to a film which may never be seen by the public, or at all events never be seen in an 'uncensored' form. Its object is to select the best from among those which the public can see and enjoy or gain knowledge. The said policy neither relates to nor interferes with the right of a film maker either to make films, or to apply for certificate or to exhibit the films. There is nothing illogical, unreasonable or arbitrary about a policy to select only the best from among films certified for public exhibition.

We cannot, in judicial review, change that policy by requiring the Government to select the best from among 'films made' instead of 'films made and certified for public exhibition'. We, therefore,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

hold that the requirement that films should have been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification between 1.1.2005 and 31.12.2005 for entry for the 53rd National Film Awards is not an unreasonable restriction of any fundamental right of the respondents or other film makers."

26. In facts of the case before Hon'ble

Apex Court, it was found that Film

Certification process of the Central Board

of Films was not an unreasonable

restriction on fundamental rights. In such

circumstances, scope of judicial review is

described by Hon'ble Apex Court.

27. Learned Single Judge of this Court in

case of Chandrakant Kantilal Dave (supra)

has also referred to the decision in case

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shiva

Kant Jha (supra). In case of Shiva Kant

Jha (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

as under:

"13. Further, the writ petitioner was admitted in emergency condition with complaint of breathlessness on 11.11.2013 in Fortis Escorts Health Institute, which was a non-empanelled hospital at the relevant time. He underwent angiography on 12.11.2013 which revealed diffused disease in left anterior descending coronary artery 50-60%. He had been implanted the CRT-D device (Combo) as part of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on 12.11.2013. The hospital charged an amount of Rs. 11,56,293/- for the said treatment, out of which, an amount of Rs. 10,70,000/- was for the cost of the unlisted cardiac implant (CRT-D) and an amount of Rs. 3,19,950/- was paid by the Insurance company directly to the hospital.

14. A Special Technical Committee meeting was held on 29.04.2014 to consider the case of the petitioner. However, on examining the same, the Committee did not find any justification for the implant of CRT-D device of the petitioner. On a further request by the petitioner, the Special Technical Committee again did not find any justification for the implant of CRT-D device on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

10.07.2014. On a request for reconsideration by the petitioner, on 15.01.2015, the case of the petitioner was again reconsidered by the Special Technical Committee which denied the claim of CRT-D. xxx

17. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

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.

18. 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. The Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

brought in force. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the writ petitioner was admitted in the above said hospitals in emergency conditions. Moreover, the law does not require that prior permission has to be taken in such situation where the survival of the person is the prime consideration. The doctors did his operation and had implanted CRT-D device and have done so as one essential and timely. Though it is the claim of the respondent-State that the rates were exorbitant whereas the rates charged for such facility shall be only at the CGHS rates and that too after following a proper procedure given in the Circulars issued on time to time by the concerned Ministry, it also cannot be denied that the petitioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions for survival of his life which requirement was above the sanctions and treatment in empanelled hospitals."

28. In facts of the case before the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shiva Kant

Jha (supra), medical treatment was taken

in emergency condition and thereafter

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1263/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

undefined

reimbursement was not made citing that the

rates mentioned in the Central Government

Health Scheme did not permit the payment

of the medical bills and in such

circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has