SHIVANAND BASAYYA HIREMATH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS
Medical Reimbursement Claim - High Court Directs Reimbursement Based on Civil Surgeon's Certification and Government Resolution's Spirit, Emphasizing a Humane Approach.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:4238-DB
Decision Date: 16-12-2025
List of Laws
Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Government Resolution dated 19th March 2005
- Facts: The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, sought reimbursement of Rs. 18,03,237/- for the medical treatment of his son, who suffered from Acute Mixed Phenotypic Leukemia and was treated at a recognized hospital. The petitioner's son passed away during the treatment. The petitioner's claim was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the illness was not covered under the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 19th March 2005.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection order passed by Respondent No. 2, seeking a direction for reimbursement of the medical expenses.
- Issue: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses for his son's treatment was justified, considering the Government Resolution dated 19th March 2005 and the opinion of the Civil Surgeon?
- Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the reimbursement of the medical claim within 8 weeks, failing which it would carry an interest of 9% p.a. until realization.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the Civil Surgeon, a competent authority, had certified that the illness was covered under the G.R. dated 19th March 2005. The Court noted that even the Block Education Officer had recommended the claim. The Court observed that the Deputy Director's committee's differing opinion was not supported by any reasoning or doubt regarding the Civil Surgeon's competency. The Court emphasized the object of the G.R. was to prevent financial hardship to government and aided-school employees seeking life-saving treatment. Denying reimbursement in such a sensitive case would go against the spirit of the G.R. The court stated, "In a welfare State, the implementing authorities are expected to adopt a fair, just, and humane approach, particularly when the competent medical authority - the Civil Surgeon has certified that the illness is covered under the G.R. and when all subordinate authorities have recommended reimbursement."
🔒 For Members Only