1 2025:CGHC:56637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3119 of 2023 1 - L.K. Sharma S/o Baleshwar Sharma Aged About 55 Years Working As Faculty Member (Information Education And Communication) Thakur Pyare Lal State Institute Of Panchayat And Rural Development (Tpsiprd), Nimora Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director Thankur Pyare Lal Institute Of Panchayat And Rural Development (Tpsiprd), Nimora, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 To call for the entire records of the case from RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 respondents. 10.2 To set aside the order dated 10/4/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 3. 10.3 To direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner with respect to medical reimbursement as per rule 2(b) of the Chhattisgarh civil services (Medial Attendance) Rules, 2013. 10.4 To direct the respondents o pay interest 9% per annum on due amount of claimed medical reimbursement from the dated of application till actual disbursement. 10.5 To direct the respondent no. 3 to pay a lump-sum amount as compensation to the petitioner for delay in claim, harassment and mental agony to the petitioner as Hon'ble Court may deemed fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.6 Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court deemed fit in the fact and circumstance of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner’s claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected. The petitioner is working as a Faculty Member at Thakur Pyarelal State Institute of Rural Development, Nimora, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) on a contractual basis, and his father, who is suffering from cancer, is undergoing treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Raipur. The 3 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 are applicable to all contractual employees working under the State of Chhattisgarh, and accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application for medical reimbursement on 06.06.2020. As the application remained pending for a considerable period, the petitioner filed WPS No. 4288/2022 seeking an appropriate direction to Respondent No. 3 for early decision, and pursuant to this, the Hon’ble Court, by order dated 28.06.2022, directed Respondent No. 3 to decide the claim within 30 days in accordance with the 2013 Rules. Despite the clear direction, Respondent No. 3 failed to comply within the stipulated time, compelling the petitioner to file Contempt Case No. 119/2023, in which notices were issued on 02.03.2023. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3, allegedly annoyed by the initiation of contempt proceedings, rejected the petitioner’s representation with an ulterior motive by misinterpreting the Rules of 2013 to suit his own whims, holding that contractual employees who are not retired are not entitled to reimbursement; consequently, the petitioner’s claim was rejected on 10.04.2023. The impugned order is arbitrary, unjustified, unfair, contrary to the 2013 Rules, and therefore illegal, giving rise to the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working as a Faculty Member at Thakur Pyarelal State Institute of Rural Development, Department of Panchayat, Nimora, Raipur on a contractual basis, had submitted medical bills amounting to 4 Rs. 73,303/- for reimbursement in the prescribed format under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 in respect of the cancer treatment of his father at AIIMS, however, respondent No. 2 rejected the claim vide order dated 10.04.2023 on the ground that the said Rules are not applicable to contractual employees, whereas Rule 2(b) of the 2013 Rules clearly makes the provisions applicable to contractual employees, and the respondent, being bound by the Rules, cannot deny reimbursement. He further submits that respondent No. 2 has not disputed the applicability of Rule 2(b), and the Rules, being welfare legislation, must be interpreted liberally as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. & Others v. M.P. Ojha & Another (1998) 2 SCC 554 wherein the right to health has been recognized as a facet of Article 21. He further submits that similarly in view has been reiterated in Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 7/2020 related to Covid-19, reaffirming that the right to health includes affordable treatment. He also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mannu Lal Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 373 of 2022) wherein it was held that medical reimbursement rules must be interpreted liberally and rejection of claims is unsustainable. In view of the above legal position, he submits that the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 is contrary to Rule 2(b) of the 2013 Rules, and therefore, respondent No. 2 may be directed to process and release the petitioner’s medical reimbursement claim of Rs. 73,303/- in the interest of 5 justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court by filing WPS No. 4288/2022 (L.K. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another), wherein his grievance was that he has been working as a Faculty Member at Thakur Pyarelal State Institute of Rural Development, Nimora, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, since 2003, and that his application dated 06.06.2020 seeking reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his father, a cancer patient, had not been considered. He further submits that the said writ petition was heard on 28.05.2022, and this Hon’ble Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation within 15 days, directing the respondents to consider the same and take a decision within a further 30 days in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. He further submits that in compliance with the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation, whereupon the answering respondents sought an opinion from the General Administration Department, as the petitioner is appointed on a contractual basis under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012. He further submits that the Rules of 2012 do not contain any provision for extending medical reimbursement benefits to contractual appointees, and the petitioner cannot claim benefit under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, as the said Rules 6 apply only to government servants holding civil posts and to retired government employees appointed on contract after retirement. Therefore, as the petitioner is merely a contractual employee and the benefit of medical reimbursement is not available to such contractual appointees at par with regular government employees, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Governor of the State in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has framed the Rules of 2013 for regulating the medical attendance and treatment of employees employed under the State Government. 7. Rule 2 of the Rules of 2013 provides for its scope and application, which states as under : “2. Scope and application – (1) These rules shall be applicable to the following- (a) all Government Servants under the control of State Government when they are on Government duty or on deputation or under training or on leave or under suspension or posted outside the State of Chhattisgarh; (b) employees employed on contract basis; (c) home guards under training or on duty; (d) fulltime employee getting salary from contingency establishment; 7 (e) member of workcharge establishment employed on monthly salary in all departments or in the projects initiated by the State Government; (f) Judicial Officers, subject to rules/orders/modifications issued by the Law Department, from time to time, keeping in view the directions issued Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the matter of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 1752. (2) These rules shall not be applicable to the following- (a) retired employees; (b) parttime employees; (c) honorary employees working under the State Government; (d) daily wages employees; (e) members of All India Services.” 8. In the matter of State of M.P. and Others v. M.P. Ojha and Another reported in (1998) 2 SCC 554, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 and they have held that a flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying these Rules and they have further held that these rules have to be construed liberally. 9. In the matter of Consumer Education & Research Centre and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 42. Paragraph 25 has held as under:- 8 "25. Therefore, we hold that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post-retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41,43,48-A and all related articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person.” 10. In the matter of Secretary, H.S.E.B vs. Suresh & Ors reported in 1999 (3) SCC 601. Paragraph 17 has held as under:- “17. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the law is well settled by this court and we need not dilate much by reason, therefore to the effect that the law.courts exist for the society and in the event of there being a question posed in the matter of interpretation of a beneficial piece of legislation, question of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach would not be justified On the contrary. the widest possible meaning and amplitude ought to be offered to the expressions used as otherwise the entire legislation would lose its efficacy and contract labour would be left on the mercy of the intermediary. As noticed above Draconian concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of interpreting a social and beneficial piece of legislation specially on the wake of the new millennium. The democratic polity ought to survive with full vigour.” 9 11. In the matter of State of M.P. and others vs. M.P. Ojha and another reported in (1998) 2 SCC 554. Paragraph 13 has held as under:- “13. The expression "wholly dependent" to be applicable to all cases in all circumstances. We also need not look into other provisions of law where such expression is defined...xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. That the father had a separate capacity of being a retired government servant is immaterial if his case falls within the medical rules being a member of family of his son and wholly dependent on him. A Flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying the Rules in a case like the present one. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”. 12. In the matter of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & others passed in Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025. Paragraph 8, 9, 10 & 11 has held as under:- "8. To answer the issue at hand, it is imperative for this Court to discuss the rules of interpretation to be applied when interpreting a beneficial legislation akin to the Act at hand. While dealing with certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court, in Brahmpal u. National Insurance Company. (2021) 6 SCC 512, observed that a beneficial legislation must receive a liberal construction in 10 consonance with the objectives that the concerned Act seeks to serve.” 9. This Court in K.H. Nazar . Mathew K. Jacob (2020) 14 SCC 126 reiterated the above expositions and stated that: "11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a purpose-oriented approach. [Kerala Fishermen's Welfare FundBoard v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341] The Act should receive a liberal construction to promote its objects. [Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573 and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813) Also, literal construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation has to be avoided. It is the Court's duty to discern the intention of the legislature in making the law. Once such an intention is ascertained, the statute should receive a purposeful or functional interpretation (Bharat Singh v New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614:1986 SCC (L&S) 335] 13. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the statute was designed to remedy should first be identified, and then a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the 11 remedy should be adopted. (Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161: (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 55) It is settled law that exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare legislations should be given strict construction Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588). It was observed in Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588) that the exclusionary provisions in a beneficial legislation should be construed strictly so as to give a wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its evasion on deceptive grounds. Similarly, in Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council (Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council, 2008 HCA 48: (2008) 237 CLR 285), Kirby, J. held that the principle of providing purposive construction to beneficial legislations mandates that exceptions in such legislations should be construed narrowly." (emphasis supplied) 10. More recently, in Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024) 7 SCC 140, this Court 12 held the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to include a company or corporate person in view of the beneficial purpose of the Act. 11. While considering the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, this Court in X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 9 SCC 433, reiterated that interpretation of the provisions of a beneficial legislation must be in line with a purposive construction, keeping in mind the legislative purpose. Furthermore, it was stated that beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to take two views." 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of In Re : The Proper Treatment of Covid 19 Patients and Dignified Handling of Dead Bodies in the Hospitals etc. (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7/2020), decided on 19-6-202 has held that right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to health includes affordable treatment. 14. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 10.4.2023 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasoned and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The same is hereby set aside. 15. The concerned respondents are directed to process and make payment of the medical bills as filed by the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13 16. The Court further observes that in matters of medical reimbursement, the authorities must adopt a humane and pragmatic approach, keeping in mind that the health and life of an employee or his dependent cannot be subjected to procedural rigidity. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat