[2026:RJ-JP:28943] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4348/2018 CNR: RJHC020333762018 | URN: CW / 7191U / 2018 Santosh Kanwar W/o Late Shri Bharat Singh Narooka, Basant Vihar, Jaipur Road, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Pension Bhawan, Jyotinagar, Jaipur. 3. Additional Director & Additional Secretary, Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Fund, Jyotinagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj, for Mr. Himanshu Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC with Mr. Shubham Gupta HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 27/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for reimbursement of the medical bills qua the treatment of the petitioner’s husband. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent-Department, was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension and CRF and was referred for treatment to Higher Centre on 25.05.2009 as the facility of CAPD was not available at Government Hospital, Sikar. The [2026:RJ-JP:28943] (2 of 4) [CW-4348/2018] Medical Board Certificate dated 25.05.2009 (Annexure-2) certifying the referral has been placed on record.. 3. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with kidney failure and the State Authorisation Committee at SMS Hospital, vide order dated 30.06.2009, approved donation of kidney to the petitioner’s husband. Subsequent thereto, the health condition of the petitioner’s husband deteriorated and he was admitted at the Institute of Kidney Disease and Research Centre, Ahmedabad. However, he expired on 07.09.2009. The petitioner submitted the application for reimbursement of medical expenses on 08.01.2010. 4. The respondent Department rejected the medical claim vide order dated 18.01.2016 on the following grounds: (i) the petitioner failed to prove an emergent situation; (ii) the certificate had not been signed by the pensioner himself; (iii) the name of the petitioner had been mentioned in the pension proposal as ‘Santosh Kanwar’ whereas it was mentioned as ‘Santosh Rathore’ in the certificate. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents raised an objection that although vide communication dated 18.01.2026 the petitioner was directed to cure the defects in the application form as submitted by her, she did not respond to the same and hence, no further action could be taken by the Department. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court is of the clear opinion that the grounds on which the respondent-Department has denied the petitioner's medical [2026:RJ-JP:28943] (3 of 4) [CW-4348/2018] reimbursement claim, are legally untenable. It is now well settled that even when treatment is undertaken in a private or unrecognized hospital, or outside the State, the Department is under an obligation to reimburse the medical expenses to the extent admissible under the applicable Rules. Therefore, the grounds assigned by the respondent-Department for rejecting the petitioner's claim are not sustainable. 8. It is clear on record that the treatment of the petitioner’s husband was taken in an emergent situation and was even referred to a higher centre due to non-availability of the required CAPD facility at the Government hospital. Therefore, denial of the claim of the medical bills by the respondent-Department on the pretext of no emergent situation cannot be held to be valid a ground. Hon’ble the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Tikam Chand Maloo; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1124/2015, (15.05.2018) held as under: “it is obvious that this Court took view that in an emergent situation, if the Govt. employee took treatment outside the State that too in unrecognized hospital, as per Rules then also, he is entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses which are scheduled under the Rules.” 9. So far as the defects pointed out by the respondent- Department in the application form are concerned, a bare perusal of communication dated 18.01.2026 reflects that most of them are hyper-technical. So far as the affidavit regarding emergency [2026:RJ-JP:28943] (4 of 4) [CW-4348/2018] and a minor variation in the name of wife are concerned, the same are quashed being hyper-technical. 10. In view of above observations and in view of the settled position of law, the writ petition is partly allowed with a direction to the petitioner to move a fresh application in requisite format while annexing all the medical bills of which the reimbursement is prayed for, within a period of 15 days from now. The application when filed, shall mandatorily be processed by the competent Authority and the amount as reimbursable in terms of Rajasthan Civil Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008 shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the application. It is made clear that the said amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum. If the amount is not reimbursed within the stipulated period, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. 11. Stay petition and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 116 - RAVI KHANDELWAL