Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010293452023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7594/2023 SURIYA BEGUM W/O LATE NAZRUL ISLAM, R/O BHOMOLAHATI (PUB GOG), P.O. BORPOLOHA, P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781121, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAPORIGOG, HOUSE NO. 5, NEAR FIELD AND MOSQUE, P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-780005, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 3:THE SECRETARY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G R A MOTTAQUEE, Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEBA, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 19.08 .2025 Heard Mr. G.R.A. Mottaquee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. D.K. Roy, learned standing counsel, SEBA, appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The grievance being sought to be addressed in this petition is that late husband of the petitioner was an employee of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA), who joined in the year 1967 as LDA and superannuated on 31.10.2005 as Assistant Controller of Examination/Registrar. In the year 1996, while the husband of the petitioner was in service, he was diagnosed with blockage of artery of heart. Then, after obtaining due permission from SEBA, he went to CMC, Vallore for treatment and since then, he was taking medicine as per doctor's advice and in the month of July, 2018, he had underwent CABG operation and represented before the SEBA authority for reimbursement of medical bills in terms of Medical Attendance Rules of SEBA, 2016. But SEBA has refused to reimburse the expenses incurred by the husband of the petitioner and during the period of COVID, he suffered demise on 17.12.2020. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing one writ petition, being WP(C) No.1481/2022 and this Court vide order dated 22.06.2022 while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondent authorities to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by late husband of the petitioner within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order dated 22.06.2022. But the respondent No.3, instead of reimbursing the entire medical expenditure, has sanctioned only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- vide sanction order dated 24.02.2023 and being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the Page No.# 3/6 present petition. 3. Mr. Mottaquee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that coronary artery bypass graft surgery of the petitioner was done on 29.07.2018 in Health City Hospital, Guwahati and he was discharged on 16.08.2018 and the petitioner has incurred expenses amounting Rs.7,04,068/- and that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent SEBA, a stand has been taken to the effect that in view of the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the Board in its meeting held on 07.12.2022 at Agenda Item No.10, discussed the matter and decided to release an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- only, as per Medical Attendance Rules, 2016 (Amended in 2019) and that the amended Rule came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2019, whereas the operation was conducted on 29.07.2018, while the earlier Rule of 2016 was in force and as per Clause 13 of the Regulation for Medical Attendance of the Board, 2016, the husband of the petitioner is entitled to full reimbursement of the expenses in respect of bypass surgery and under such circumstances, Mr. Mottaquee submits that the action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the provision of law and as such, arbitrary and illegal and liable to be interfered with. 4. Per contra, Mr. Roy, learned standing counsel for the respondent SEBA, referring to its affidavit submits that pursuant to the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1481/2022, the Board has discussed the matter of reimbursement of the medical bills submitted by Suriya Begum, W/o Late Nazrul Islam, Ex-Asstt. Controller, SEBA, in Agenda Item No.10 of the Board's meeting held on 07.12.2022 and after discussion, resolved to release maximum Rs.3,00,000/- as per Medical Attendance Rules, 2016 (Amended in 2019), which is applicable in case of retired employees of SEBA. Mr. Roy, further submits that the Board is an autonomous organisation and it is run on the revenue collected from the students fees only and there is no financial assistance from the Government and as such, it is not feasible for the Board to overbear any amount in any case and the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- is not covered under the Rule of the Board and therefore, the Board has released Rs.3,00,000/- pursuant to the order of this Court in WP(C) No.1481/2022, dated 22.06.2022 and under such circumstances, Mr. Roy submits Page No.# 4/6 that this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the Medical Attendance Rules of SEBA. 6. The basic facts here in this case are not in dispute. The late husband of the petitioner was an employee of SEBA and he retired on superannuation on 31.10.2005 having joined in the year 1967, as Assistant Controller of Examination/Registrar. He was diagnosed with blockage of artery of heart in the year 1996 and he wad undergone treatment and operation was performed upon him on 29.07.2018 in Health City Hospital, Guwahati and he was discharged on 16.08.2018. It is also not in dispute that in the entire process, the late husband of the petitioner had incurred a sum of Rs.7,04,068/-. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner has filed one representation before the respondent authorities for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount, but the same was not considered by the respondent authorities, for which the husband of the petitioner has preferred one writ petition, being WP(C) No.1481/2022 and vide order dated 22.06.2022, this Court was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the aforementioned amount. But, thereafter, the Board in its meeting held on 07.12.2022, in Agenda Item No.10 has decided to release only Rs.3,00,000/- in view of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2016 (Amended in 2019). 7. Now the question to be looked into is - in case of the late husband of the petitioner, whether the Amended Rule 2019, which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2019, will be applicable or the old Rule i.e. Medical Attendance Rules, 2016 will be applicable. 8. Indisputably, the operation of the late husband of the petitioner was conducted on 29.07.2018, while the old Rule was prevailing and Clause 13 of the said Rule provides that in respect of bypass surgery, full reimbursement of expenses may be allowed subject to submission of certificate from authorised medical attendant and referred hospital. Since the operation was conducted on 29.07.2018, at that point of time, the old Medical Attendance Rules, 2016 was prevailing, which provides for full reimbursement. The Page No.# 5/6 amended Rule came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2019, which is annexed with the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No.3 as Annexure-B. Nowhere in the said Regulation 2016, it is indicated about retrospective effect of the same, rather in no uncertain term, it is stated that the Regulation shall came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2019. 9. And in that view of the matter, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the full amount, to the considered opinion of this Court is illegal and arbitrary and as such, the resolution adopted by the Board in its meeting held on 07.12.2022, in respect of Agenda Item No.10, to the considered opinion of this Court fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and as such, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a case for interference of this Court. 10. Though a stand has been taken by the respondent SEBA that it has not received any financial assistance from the Government and as such, it is not feasible to overbear the amount, yet, there is no indication in the entire affidavit filed by the respondent SEBA that there is financial crunch, for which it cannot overbear the amount, while Clause 13 of the earlier Regulation for Medical Attendance of the Board, 2016 clearly indicates about full reimbursement in respect of bypass surgery. 11. It is well settled in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. M.S. Chawla & Ors., reported in (1997) 2 SCC 83, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to health and medical care. Further, in the case of Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 165, Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. 12. In Consumer Education and Research Centre & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 42, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that social justice, which is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with human dignity requires the state to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilised living. The health and strength of worker, is an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen of the Page No.# 6/6 finer facets of life violating Article 21. 13. In the instant case, if we consider the stand so taken by the respondent SEBA in the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, then the same is clearly unsustainable, when the Clause 13 of the earlier Regulation for Medical Attendance of the Board, 2016 clearly indicates about full reimbursement in respect of bypass surgery. 14. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to reimburse the remaining amount of the claim made by the petitioner. 15. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No.3, SEBA, within a period of one week from today and thereafter, within a period of 6(six) weeks, the respondent No.3 shall make necessary arrangement for payment of remaining amount of Rs.4,04,068/-. In the event of failing to make payment within the stipulated period, the amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim i.e. 27.06.2019 (Annexure-10) made by the petitioner till the date of payment. 16. In terms of above, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE