Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010225732025 2025:GAU-AS:17829-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/8/2026 ASSAM STATE SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD (ASSEB) DIVISION I (ERSTWHILE SEBA) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI NARNARAYAN NATH, SON OF LATE NANI GOPAL NATH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RO SILPUKHURI SENAPATI PATH, GUWAHATI-781003, DIST KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS 1: SURIYA BEGUM W/O LATE NAZRUL ISLAM,R/O BHOMOLAHATI PUB GOG, P.O. BORPOLOHA, P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781121,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAPORIGOG,HOUSE NO. 5, NEAR FIELD AND MOSQUE, P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781005,DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. ASSAM SECONDARY EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Chutia, Advocate. : Mr. D.K. Roy, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.A. Mazarbhuiya, Advocate for respondent No.1. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 28.01.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) This case revolves around the dispute over the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the late husband of the respondent No.1 for Page No.# 2/3 a Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery. The deceased was a former employee of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) (hereinafter to be referred as he “Board”), who retired as Assistant Controller of Examination/Registrar on 31.10.2005. While still in service, he was diagnosed with heart artery blockage in the year 1996. However, only in the year 2018, after his retirement, he underwent CABG surgery at CMC, Vellore, a hospital not on SEBA’s referral panel, without prior permission of the Board. The cost of Surgery came to Rs.7 lakhs and the family of the employee sought reimbursement under SEBA’s Medical Attendance Rules, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2016”), which was in force when the CABG Surgery was done on the employee (since deceased). The claim of reimbursement was rejected on the ground that the treatment was done in a non-referral hospital. The employee left the world of living in the year 2020. His wife/respondent No.1 filed a writ petition [WP(C) No.1481/2022] seeking reimbursement where the appellant/Board was directed to reexamine the claim, verify the same, grant ex-post facto approval, if needed, and reimburse the expenses, possibly invoking Clause 17 of the Rules of 2016 for relaxation. Pursuant to the afore-noted directions, the appellant/Board reexamined the issue in a Board meeting and sanctioned Rs.3 lakhs for reimbursement, applying the amendment to the Rules of 2016, which amendment was made effective from 01.01.2019, keeping the cap on reimbursement at Rs.3 lakhs for ex-employees and their dependents. Dissatisfied, the respondent No.1 filed another writ petition before this Court [WP(C) No.7594/2023], seeking full reimbursement as per the Rules Page No.# 3/3 of 2016 prevailing at the time of the surgery of her husband, which prayer was allowed. Hence, this appeal. Mr. Chutia, learned Advocate for the appellant/Board has submitted that there was a reason for making the amendment in the Rules of 2016, bringing in an overall upper ceiling limit of Rs.3 lakhs for reimbursement of the medical expenses for ex-employees, namely, the Board being autonomous and funded solely by students’ fee. The appellant/ Board does not get any Government aid and that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the surgery was conducted on the employee in a non-referral hospital. This is no ground to interfere with the judgment impugned in the present appeal, which has only directed for implementation of the Rules of 2016, which was in force at the time of the treatment, for which full reimbursement is being sought. We, therefore, endorse the view of the learned Single Judge and direct for payment of the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 90(ninety) days from today. Considering the special circumstances of this case, we are not directing for payment of any interest on the delayed payment of the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs payable to the respondent No.1. With the above observation, the writ appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant