- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33198 WP No. 11097 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11097 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SMITA NAGALAPUR W/O MAHESH H AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC. CIVIL JUDGE, R/O BELLARY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.2 JUDGES QUARTERS, AIWAN-E-SHAHI KALABURAGI - 585 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CONTROLLING OFFICER DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX KALABURAGI - 585102. 4. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX KALABURAGI - 585102. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33198 WP No. 11097 of 2024 5. THE C.E.O, MANIPAL HOSPITAL MYSURU MANIPAL HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED) 85-86, MYSURU BENGALURU RING ROAD JUCTION BANNI MANTAP ‘A’ LAYOUT SIDDIQUI NAGAR MYSURU - 570015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS R, AGA FOR R1: SRI M A SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4: SRI M JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. DCK/ACCTS/MR/01/2023- 24 KALABURGI DATED 21/04/2023 PASSED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-E AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO: DCK/ACCT/2023-24 KALABURGI DATED 20/07/2023 PASSED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings dated 21.04.2023 and 20.07.2023 vide Annexures-E and F, respectively, restricting the medical reimbursement. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33198 WP No. 11097 of 2024 2. The petitioner is working as Additional Civil Judge. When she was working at Madikeri, she underwent IVF treatment at Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru. After taking treatment, she conceived and she submitted a medical bill for a sum of Rs.8,23,443/- for reimbursement. The respondent, vide Annexure-E dated 21.04.2023 reimbursed a sum of Rs.3,68,162/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a review before the third respondent, whereby the amount has been enhanced to Rs.3,72,909/-. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders vide Annexures E and F, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has spent Rs.8,23,443/- for treatment at Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru. As per the Karnataka Judicial Officers (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2009 (for short, ‘2009 Rules’), the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the entire amount she has spent for treatment. But the respondent has granted only Rs.3,72,909/. The calculation made by the respondent is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33198 WP No. 11097 of 2024 contrary to the 2009 Rules. Hence, sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that under Rule 5(7) of the 2009 Rules, the respondent has made calculations and reimbursed the medical bill. Under the 2009 Rules, if the petitioner has taken treatment in other than the Government hospital or Government notified hospital, she is not entitled to full reimbursement of the medical bill. The same will be calculated on the basis of the medical expenses incurred for treatment in Government Hospitals or Government notified hospital. Pursuant to the 2009 Rules, the amount has been calculated and reimbursement has been made. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33198 WP No. 11097 of 2024 6. When the petitioner was working as Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Madikeri, Kodagu, she has undergone IVF treatment at Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru. Thereafter, she conceived and she has spent Rs.8,23,443/- for her treatment. She submitted the medical bill to the third respondent for reimbursement of the medical expenses. Rule 5(7) of the 2009 Rules is extracted below: “5. Reimbursement of medical expenses: ………… (7) In respect of expenses including accommodation where such treatment is taken, incurred by a judicial officer for the medical attendance and treatment obtained by him and for members of his family in any place other than in a diagnostic centre, hospital or dispensary maintained by the State Government or an hospital or dispensary for the time being notified by the Karnataka Government under Karnataka Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 or Karnatkaa Legislature (Members’ Medical Attendance) Rules, 1968, he shall be entitled for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33198 WP No. 11097 of 2024 reimbursement of the expenses incurred to the same extent as he is entitled under these rules for imbursement of expenses incurred by him for medical attendance and treatment obtained in such hospital or dispensary.” 7. From a reading of the above Rules, it is very clear that, if the judicial officer has taken treatment in any hospital other than diagnostic centre, hospital or dispensary managed by the State Government or the hospital or dispensary for the time being notified by the Government of Karnataka under the Karnataka Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 or Karnataka Legislature (Members’ Medical Attendance) Rules, 1968, she shall be entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred to the same extent as she is entitled under these rules for the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by her for medical attendance and treatment obtained in such hospital or dispensary. The petitioner has taken treatment at Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru. It is not a Government notified hospital. Even though the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33198 WP No. 11097 of 2024 petitioner has spent Rs.8,23,443/- for treatment, as per 2009 Rules, the amount has been calculated as expenses incurred by her in the Government hospital or in the Government notified hospital. On that basis, the third respondent has calculated a sum of Rs.3,72,909/-. Therefore, there is no error in the proceedings of the respondent vide Annexures E and F. The same are issued in accordance with 2009 Rules. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44