State Of Kerala Represented By The ... vs Dileep.K.G
2025 Latest Caselaw 9333 Ker

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala Represented By The ... vs Dileep.K.G on 6 October, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                                    1




OP(KAT) No.396 of 2025
                                                    2025:KER:73913

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                                    &

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

      MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947

                         OP(KAT) NO. 396 OF 2025

         AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 IN OA NO.2015 OF 2021 OF

KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

     1       STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
             SECRETARY, HOME (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
             SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001

     2       THE CHIEF CHEMICAL EXAMINER,CHEMICAL EXAMINERS
             LABORATORY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA.,
             PIN - 695035

     3       THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY
             WELFARE (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001

             BY ADV B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

             DILEEP.K.G,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O K.GOPALAN, JUNIOR
             SUPERINTENDENT, CHEMICAL EXAMINERS, LABORATORY,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT KONIYIL HOUSE,
             THIRUMALABHAGOM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, ,KERALA,
             PIN - 688540
             ADV.K.B DAYAL
      THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                       2




OP(KAT) No.396 of 2025
                                                       2025:KER:73913


                                JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in O.A.No.2015 of 2021 on the file of the

Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the

'Tribunal' in short) filed this original petition, invoking the

supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.01.2025

passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The respondent, who has been working as a Junior

Superintendent in the Chemical Examiners' Laboratory,

Thiruvananthapuram, approached the Tribunal with the original

application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal

Act, 1985, being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for medical

reimbursement by Annexures A3 and A6 orders dated 01.02.2021

and 13.09.2021, respectively, of the 1st petitioner.

3. Going by the averments in the original application, the

respondent, while going to his workplace, suffered chest pain and

uneasiness and was hospitalised in Renai Medicity, Palarivattom,

on 11.03.2020. He was subjected to an urgent Angioplasty

surgery on the same day and was discharged from the hospital on

2025:KER:73913

14.03.2020. Annexure A1 is the discharge summary issued to the

respondent from Renai Medicity. Subsequently, on 08.09.2020,

the respondent applied for medical reimbursement through the 2 nd

petitioner, who is the Head of the Department. But his request

was rejected by the 1st petitioner by Annexure A3 order dated

01.02.2021, citing Annexure A4 Government circular

No.34/2020/Fin dated 12.06.2020. Thereafter, the respondent

again submitted Annexure A5 request dated 29.03.2021 for

medical reimbursement, through the 2nd petitioner, pointing out

that the said circular does not have retrospective operation. But

by Annexure A6 order dated 13.09.2021, the 1 st petitioner once

again rejected the claim of the respondent. Contending that as

on the date of treatment of the respondent, Annexure A7 circular

dated 11.07.2012 issued by the 3rd petitioner was in force and

hence the rejection of his claim for medical reimbursement as

illegal, the respondent filed the original application.

4. On behalf of the 1st petitioner, a reply statement dated

16.12.2022 was filed before the Tribunal opposing the reliefs

sought for in the original application. Paragraphs 10 to 13 of that

2025:KER:73913

reply statement read thus:

"10. Government decision to reject the request is valid based on following reasons. The reimbursement of expense incurred for the treatment of Government servants and members of their family is being governed by Kerala Government Servants' Medical-Attendance - Rules, 1960. As per Rule 8(1) of the said Kerala Government Servants' Medical- Attendance Rules, 1960, Government shall not be responsible for any expenditure, incurred by a Government servant on medical-treatment by admitting himself into a non-Government Institution or by consulting a private doctor, except as specifically provided in these Rules. According to 8(3) of the said Rules, Government Servants who have no Government Medical Institutions within a radius of 5 miles of their station may resort to the Private Institutions notified by the Director of Health Services vide 8(2) of the said Rules and the charges incurred by them would be reimbursed by Government to the extend they would have received such treatment free in a Government Institution or at the hands of an Authorized Medical Attendant.

11. Also as per Circular No.24623/G2/2012/H&FWD, dated 11.07.2012 itself Government was giving sanction to unlisted hospitals only with recommendation and ex-post facto approval of Health And Family Welfare Department, if that department consider it as special case, which is not obtained in this case. The Annexure-A4 circular, that rejects

2025:KER:73913

claims as part of the Government's fiscal regulation does not abrogate the decision making power of Health Department in this case.

12. Hence in this case, the Applicant is not eligible for reimbursement of the expenses incurred for his treatment, since he underwent treatment at a non empanelled hospital.

13. Also as per Circular No. 24623/G2/2012/H&FWD, dated 11.07.2012 itself Government was giving sanction to unlisted hospitals only with recommendation and ex post facto approval of Health And Family Welfare Department, if that department consider it as special case. That Department, in this case, did not accord to approve the reimbursement claim. The Annexure-A4 Circular, that rejects claim based on present financial condition does not abrogate the decision making power of Health Department in this case. As, that department also approves the decision of the Government, request of the Applicant thus rejected and is valid".

5. After hearing both sides and on the appreciation of

materials on record, by the impugned order dated 28.01.2025, the

Tribunal allowed the original application. Paragraphs 5 to 10 and

the last paragraph of that order read thus:

"5. The applicant's claim for medical re-imbursement is rejected on the ground that he did not seek treatment from a Government hospital or a hospital recognized by Government, irrespective of the fact that he was taken to

2025:KER:73913

the hospital on the way to his office in a critical condition, to a nearby hospital, where he was subjected to Angioplasty, in order to save his life. In the judgment in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India [(2018) 16 SCC 187], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that what is relevant is whether the claimant had actually undertaken the treatment and the factum of treatment and taking treatment in a specialty hospital by itself cannot deprive a person from claiming reimbursement on the ground that the said hospital was not included in the Government Order.

6. This Tribunal has also, following the aforesaid judgments, in the order dated 09.11.2023 in O.A(Ekm) 484 of 2019, directed reimbursement of the medical claims, taking note of the fact that the right to health is part of right to life which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as was held in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubbayya Bagga & others [(1998) 4 SCC 117], Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India [(1995) 3 SCC 42], Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and others vs. Union of India and others [(2006) 8 SCC 399], etc. In para 24 and 25 of that order, this Tribunal held as follows:

"24. Now it is well settled law that right to life includes right to health and it is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 reads as follows:

2025:KER:73913

25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 provides for the following:

12. 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: XXX

(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

25. Despite all these provisions and judgments declaring that the right to health and right to medical aid, in turn, is the right to life under Article 21 and the State is duty bound under Article 47 and in the light of the international covenant and Universal Declaration of Human rights, the respondents are denying the claim for medical attendance on the basis of rates fixed about

2025:KER:73913

two decades ago. That would show that Government do not look into the factual circumstances in total ignorance of its constitutional obligation to provide medical attendance benefits."

7. In the judgment in Dr.George Thomas v. State of Kerala [2022 (3) KLT 133], the Hon'ble High Court held that it is a constitutional as well as statutory obligation on the part of the State to bear the expenses for treatment of Government Servants and their family members, in the background of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rules issued under the proviso to Article 309. The reasons stated for denying re-imbursement in that case also was that the particular department of the hospital was not recognized. The treatment was undergone in the Laproscopic surgery Department of St. Gregorius Medical Mission Hospital and the claim was rejected on the ground that particular department of that hospital was not recognised by Government.

8. In the light of all these verdicts, by denying the claim for re-imbursement to the applicant on the ground that the treatment was undergone in a hospital not empanelled or was not recognized, the respondents have deprived the right to health of a government employee arbitrarily in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in total ignorance of their constitutional obligation under Article 47 of the Constitution of India and the international covenants and the provisions under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The circulars and rules issued in respect of medical

2025:KER:73913

re-imbursement shall be read in tune with the aforesaid provisions and the fundamental, constitutional and human rights of the Government servants.

9. The 1st respondent ought to have accorded sanction on the application in tune with the recommendation of the 2 nd respondent in Annexure A2(a).

10. In the circumstances, the impugned orders Annexures A3 and A6 are set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 3 to take appropriate steps for re- imbursement of admissible medical expenses claimed in Annexure A2 application, irrespective of the fact that the treatment was in a hospital not empanelled/unrecognized one. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case Annexure A2 application has been returned, the 2nd respondent shall forward the same to respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Original Application is allowed accordingly".

6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a

combined reading of Rule 4 and Rule 8 of the Kerala Government

Servants Medical Attendance Rules, 1960, makes it clear that the

treatment/medical attendance received in hospitals not

2025:KER:73913

recognised by the Rules is not automatic. Only in cases where the

Government servants find themselves in a position where no

hospitals exist within a radius of 5 km, in terms of Rule 8(2), such

persons are entitled to claim medical reimbursement in terms of

Rule 8(3). Note to Rule 8(3) reinforces the intention of the

Government that such measures should be resorted to only in

terms of an emergency. Rule 8 (4) provides for the time frame

within which things will have to be finalised. The hospital where

the respondent obtained treatment is not notified or recognised

by the Government. The Tribunal failed to consider these aspects

while passing the impugned order.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent argued that the curtailment in Annexure A4

Government circular dated 12.06.2020 is only prospective and it

has no retrospective operation. The Tribunal has considered these

aspects while passing the impugned order. Hence, no interference

is needed on the order of the Tribunal by exercising the

supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the

2025:KER:73913

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.

10. 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

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.

11. 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

2025:KER:73913

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.

12. 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

2025:KER:73913

it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or

the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

13. 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.

14. 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 a lower court or Tribunal. The

supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors

2025:KER:73913

of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within

the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under

Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or

judgment of a lower court or 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 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 or where there has been gross and manifest failure of

justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

15. The respondent was hospitalised in an emergent

situation, and he underwent an angioplasty surgery on the date of

his admission in the hospital. The petitioners are objecting the

reimbursement of the medical bills of the respondent for the

reason that the treatment obtained by the respondent is not from

a Government hospital or from an empanelled hospital. The

Tribunal considered this contention of the petitioners and, relying

2025:KER:73913

on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha [(2018)

16 SCC 187] and that of this Court in Dr.George Thomas

[2022 (3) KLT 133] ruled in favour of the respondent. On

reappreciation of materials on record, we find no illegality or

incorrectness in the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and

the submissions made at the Bar, we find no reason to say that

the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which

warrants the interference of this Court by exercising the

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

sks                             MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE






                                                        2025:KER:73913


                         APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 396/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1                TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE BILL DETAILS

ISSUED BY THE RENAI MEDICITY, PALARIVATTOM, DATED 14.03.2020 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATE NIL Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 08.09.2020.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E4/390/2020/HOME DATED 01.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.34/2020/FIN. DATED 12.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (LOANS) Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 29.03.2021 SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E4/390/2020/HOME DATED 13.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.24623/G2/2012/H&FWD DATED 11.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.2015/2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A7 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 23.12.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 28.01.2025