Right To Health And Medical Care Is A Fundamental Right For Serving And Retired Employees Under Article 21: AP High Court Directs Medical Reimbursement To Ex-Revenue Officer For Deceased Wife’s Treatment
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti has set aside a memo by the State Secretary returning a retired Revenue Officer’s request for medical reimbursement and directed the Secretary to grant relaxation and release Rs. 96,424. The claim related to expenses for his late wife’s cancer treatment; the proposal was returned on the basis of the 15 October 2011 Government Order on fiscal discipline, whose clause (iv) bars relaxations involving additional exchequer burden, including medical bills. Stating that the right to health forms part of the right to life under Article 21, the Court ordered the Secretary to issue the relaxation order within three weeks and ensure payment within four weeks thereafter.
The petitioner, a retired Revenue Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, sought reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his wife, who suffered from “Ca. Breast with bone metastasis” and was treated at Soumya Multi Speciality Hospital, Secunderabad, between 24 March 2007 and 28 June 2007. The total expenditure claimed was Rs. 1,28,446. The medical bills were submitted on 5 October 2009 to the competent municipal authority with a request for relaxation, as the submission was beyond the stipulated six-month period.
As the bills were not forwarded, the petitioner approached the High Court earlier, resulting in directions for consideration of his claim. Subsequently, the proposal was scrutinised by the Director of Medical Education, who approved Rs. 96,424 after imposing a 15% cut in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972. The proposal, seeking relaxation for the delayed claim, was forwarded through the Director of Municipal Administration to the State Government.
The State Government returned the proposal by memo dated 31 January 2012, citing G.O.Ms.No.230 Finance (DCM-I) Department dated 15 October 2011, which restricted relaxation involving additional financial burden. Challenging the return of the proposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking setting aside of the memo and sanction of the approved amount.
The Court examined the scope and applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 5 and Appendix-III. It noted that “any claim that has been preferred six months after the last date of the period of treatment shall ordinarily be rejected” but that the notes to Appendix-III permit belated claims to be referred to the Government for special sanction, subject to a 15% cut.
On facts, the Court recorded that the Director of Medical Education had already scrutinised the bills and approved Rs. 96,424 after applying the prescribed deduction. It observed that the subsequent rejection was solely on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.230 dated 15 October 2011. The Court stated that “the said G.O. was issued on 15.10.2011, which operates only prospectively” and therefore could not govern a claim initially made in 2009 and processed prior to its issuance.
The Court further recorded that the right to health forms part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the State has a constitutional obligation under Article 39(e) to provide medical facilities. Referring to precedents, the Court observed that “no administrative order, executive action, or Government Order… can override, curtail, or suspend the provisions of the Constitution of India.” It also noted that executive instructions may supplement statutory rules but cannot supplant them.
In this context, the Court held that reliance on G.O.Ms.No.230 to deny the petitioner’s approved claim was unsustainable, as the claim had already been examined and allowed under the applicable Rules. The Court also recorded that the petitioner, a retired employee, had been made to wait for more than a decade for reimbursement of the approved amount.
The Court ordered that “Memo No.25569/D2/2011-3, dated 31.01.2012, issued by respondent No.1, returning the proposal for sanction of Rs.96,424/- towards medical reimbursement, without extending relaxation, is hereby set aside.”
“Respondent No.1 shall sanction relaxation regarding the proposal towards medical reimbursement for sanction of Rs.96,424/- to the petitioner in pursuance of Ex.P9 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order.”
“Thereafter, the respondent authorities shall ensure payment of the amount to the petitioner, as per the rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks. No costs” and that “As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Marupilli Sarada, learned counsel
Case Title: N.G. Papa Rao v. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department and Another
Neutral Citation: APHC010577332012
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11212 of 2012
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
