Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jawanaram vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47497]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 189/2010
Jawanaram Chouhan S/o Pekaram B/c Suthar Aged 54 years,
R/o Manpura Colony, Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Raj. Through The Principal Secretary, Medical,
Health & Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, Secretariate.
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariate.
Rajasthan, Jaipur
4 The Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Gr.2) Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
5. The Additional Director (Finance & Accounts) Board of
Revenue, Rajasthan, Jaipur
6. The District Collector. (Land Records), Jalore
7. The Tehsildar, (Land Records). Jalore.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Viveek Sharma for
Mr. Mukesh Dave AGC
Mr. Pukhraj Suthar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 07/11/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 29/10/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the
petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (2 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the
petitioner towards the treatment of his wife, along with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of incurrence of expenditure till
the date of actual payment by the respondents.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is
serving as a Patwari under the Government of Rajasthan. His wife,
Smt. Sunder Devi, had gone to Surat along with their son to assist
her brother engaged in business there. During her stay, she
developed a severe renal ailment and was admitted to Mahaveer
General Hospital, Sangrampura, Surat in a critical condition. Upon
receiving information, the petitioner reached Surat, where the
attending doctors informed him that both kidneys of his wife had
failed, necessitating urgent surgery and continued dialysis twice a
week.
2.1. The petitioner incurred medical expenses amounting to
₹80,992/- up to 01.09.2005 and, due to the continued treatment
requirements, submitted an application to the District Collector
(Land Records), Jalore, seeking reimbursement and allocation of a
special budget. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Jalore,
recommended reimbursement and further allotment of funds vide
letter dated 01.09.2005. The District Collector accordingly
forwarded the case to the Additional Registrar (Finance &
Accounts), Board of Revenue, Ajmer, on 20.09.2005.
2.2. The Additional Registrar raised certain queries, which were
duly clarified by the District Collector and the petitioner through
successive correspondences dated 25.11.2005 and 09.05.2006.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (3 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
Meanwhile, the petitioner's wife succumbed to her illness on
04.04.2006. The Collector recommended reimbursement of
₹2,29,465/- towards the total treatment expenditure.
2.3. Vide communication dated 15.06.2006, the Additional
Registrar requested the Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Group-II),
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to sanction reimbursement by
granting relaxation in rules. The District Collector, Jalore,
reiterated through letter dated 04.12.2006 that the petitioner was
entitled to full reimbursement under the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred as 'the
Rules of 1970).
2.4. The Revenue Department, however, sought a valuation from
the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, for an equivalent treatment cost. The
hospital assessed the amount at ₹50,000/-. Acting on this, the
petitioner furnished an undertaking dated 19.04.2007, agreeing to
accept ₹50,000/- as per the S.M.S. Hospital's estimation. The
Collector forwarded the same to the Board of Revenue for
budgetary sanction.
2.5. Despite repeated communications between the year 2007
and 2008 from the District Collector, Jalore, and the Board of
Revenue to the Finance Department and Revenue (Group-II)
Department, the reimbursement was never sanctioned. After a
lapse of two years and no disbursement, the petitioner withdrew
his undertaking vide letter dated 17.07.2009.
2.6. The petitioner contends that treatment at Mahaveer General
Hospital, Surat was necessitated by an emergent medical
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (4 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
situation, and as held in various judgments of the Hon'ble High
Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, medical reimbursement
cannot be denied merely because treatment was undertaken
outside the State or in a private hospital during an emergency.
2.7. The petitioner's total claim of ₹2,25,000/- remains unpaid.
Even the partial amount of ₹50,000/-, to which he had consented
earlier, was never sanctioned. Consequently, he served a legal
notice upon the respondents, which was duly acknowledged, but
no further action was taken till now, hence the instant Writ
Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
respondents' refusal to reimburse the petitioner's medical claim of
₹2,25,000/- incurred for the treatment of his deceased wife at
Mahaveer General Hospital, Surat, is arbitrary, illegal, and
contrary to the Rules of 1970. Despite the petitioner's full
compliance with procedural requirements, the authorities,
adopting a mechanical approach, failed to process his claim,
compelling him even to furnish an undertaking to accept
₹50,000/-, which too remains unpaid.
3.1. It was urged that treatment undertaken in an emergency
cannot be denied reimbursement merely because it occurred in a
private or non-recognized hospital, as the right to medical relief is
integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents'
inaction, it was argued, reflects administrative apathy, violates
Articles 14, 16, and 21, and frustrates the object of the welfare
scheme. The petitioner, having suffered prolonged financial and
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (5 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
mental distress for over nine years, thus seeks full reimbursement
with interest.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner's grounds are mere reiterations of earlier contentions
already dealt with in the reply. The impugned action is lawful,
justified, and in conformity with the applicable rules. Under the
the Rules of 1970, reimbursement of actual expenses incurred in
a private hospital is impermissible, except to the extent admissible
at recognized rates. Reliance is placed on B.L. Verma v. State of
Rajasthan decided on 20.05.2008, wherein this Hon'ble Court
held that reimbursement is limited to rates prescribed for
recognized institutions.
4.1. It is further urged that the petitioner cannot claim benefits
de hors the rules, circulars, or judicial precedents, nor raise new
grounds during arguments without affording rebuttal. Hence, the
writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with
costs.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the niceties of the matter as also the material placed on
record.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a
meticulous perusal of the record, this Court finds that the
controversy pivots around a narrow yet significant issue: whether
the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses
incurred for the treatment of his wife at Mahaveer General
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (6 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
Hospital, Surat, a private institution situated outside the State,
under the ambit of the Rules of 1970.
6.1 It is trite that the right to medical aid forms an inseparable
facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The State, being a model and welfare
employer, is under a constitutional as well as moral obligation to
safeguard the health and well-being of its employees and their
dependents. Denial of reimbursement merely because treatment
was availed at a private or non-recognized institution, particularly
during an emergency, is antithetical to the spirit of the welfare
State and the mandate of Articles 14, 16, and 21.
6.2 The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Surendra Kumar Kalra [RLW 2008 (3)
Raj. 1953] has lucidly enunciated that in cases of emergent
medical exigency, the government cannot rigidly insist that its
employees obtain treatment solely from government-recognized
institutions. The Court held that when immediate medical
intervention is imperative for saving life, delay can prove fatal,
and hence, reimbursement must be accorded at rates applicable
to recognized government hospitals.
6.3 Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Rakheja v.
State of Haryana [(2004) 13 SCC 562] held that where a
patient was admitted in an emergent condition to a non-
recognized private hospital, the employee was entitled to full
reimbursement at AIIMS rates and 75% of the expenses
exceeding such rates. The Apex Court underscored that
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (7 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
emergency circumstances override procedural formalities, and the
State's duty to preserve life cannot be diluted by technicalities.
6.4 A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Kanhaiya Lal Dave v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
420/2009] and Gyanendra Kumar Pareek v. State of
Rajasthan [2009 (4) WLC (Raj.) 95], reiterated that
"emergency knows no law and no procedure," emphasizing that
when human life is imperiled, the State cannot abdicate its
responsibility. It was held that reimbursement must be granted
even if treatment was obtained at an unrecognized hospital or
outside the State without prior reference, subject, however, to the
rates prescribed for recognized institutions.
6.5 This legal position was reaffirmed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 5714/2011 - Sohan Lal Sharma v. State Finance
Department & Ors., decided on 04.12.2024, wherein the
Coordinate Bench, while drawing upon the aforementioned
precedents, observed that reimbursement cannot be withheld
merely on account of the treatment having been undertaken in an
unrecognized hospital outside the State or without prior
permission. The Court directed that reimbursement must be
processed strictly in accordance with the prescribed rates,
together with interest at 6% per annum after 30 days of
submission of bills.
6.6 For ready reference, this Court recalls the following extract
from Sohan Lal Sharma (supra), which draws from the
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (8 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
judgments in Kanhaiya Lal Dave and Gyanendra Kumar
Pareek:
"When a family member suffers from a
cardiac ailment, the prime objective of the
other family member would be to save
his/her life. Emergency knows no law and no
procedure, and when human life is at stake,
the ultimate responsibility of the State cannot
be washed off. The Government cannot insist
upon an employee to get himself treated only
at a recognized government institution. All
that the Government can do in such
circumstances is to reimburse the concerned
employee at the rates applicable to
recognized government hospitals."
The judgment further relied on Surjit Singh v. State of
Punjab [AIR 1996 SC 1388] and State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Mohan Lal Jindal [(2001) 9 SCC 217], wherein the Supreme
Court unambiguously held that reimbursement must be made
even if the treatment is undertaken in an unrecognized hospital or
outside the State, provided it is emergent in nature.
6.7 In the backdrop of these judicial pronouncements, it is
abundantly clear that the petitioner's case falls squarely within the
ambit of an emergent medical situation. His wife was admitted to
Mahaveer General Hospital, Surat, in a critical state with renal
failure necessitating immediate dialysis and surgical intervention.
The petitioner, upon being informed, rushed to Surat and bore
substantial medical expenses in good faith and urgency. The
authorities themselves acknowledged the genuineness of the
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (9 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
claim, having sought a valuation from S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur,
which assessed the admissible amount at ₹50,000/-. Yet, even
this amount was never disbursed, reflecting administrative apathy
and insensitivity.
6.8 This Court, therefore, finds that the denial of reimbursement
in such circumstances not only frustrates the object of the Rules
of 1970 but also infringes upon the petitioner's fundamental rights
under Article 21. The respondents were expected to act with
fairness, empathy, and promptitude, especially when the case
pertained to life-saving treatment of a dependent. Their failure to
do so for nearly two decades is deplorable and cannot be
condoned.
6.9. Accordingly, this Court reiterates that the petitioner is
entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred for
the treatment of his wife at Mahaveer General Hospital, Surat,
restricted to the rates applicable to recognized government
hospitals in Rajasthan (such as S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur), as
envisaged under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1970.
7. In the result, the writ petition thus succeeds and is hereby
allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Stay
applications and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
7.1. The respondents are directed to verify the petitioner's
medical bills, process the same in accordance with the prescribed
rates, and release the admissible amount after deducting any
payment already made. The amount shall carry interest at the
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47497] (10 of 10) [CW-189/2010]
rate of 6% per annum from the expiry of 30 days after the
submission of bills until the date of actual payment.
(FARJAND ALI),J
2-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:32:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
