1 2026:CGHC:27444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5732 of 2022 1 - Vijay Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late M.P. Shrivastava, Aged About 61 Years Presently Working As Head Constable (Dcb Rail), Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Railway, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General Of Police (Railway), Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police (Rail), Railway Premises, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri T.L. Bareth, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 03.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby directing the respondents authorities to settle the claim of medical reimbursement and finalize the medical claim of the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Head Constable (DCB) and retired from service in the year 2023. During the COVID-19 out- bust, on 4.4.2021, the petitioner experienced certain medical complications and immediately informed the respondent authorities. Thereafter, he underwent a COVID-19 test, the result of which was positive. Subsequently, the petitioner underwent an RTPCR Test at the Heritage Institute of Medical Science, where he was again found positive for COVID-19. As the symptoms were severe, the petitioner approached the District Hospital, Raipur; however, he was denied admission due to non-availability of beds. Consequently, he approached Heritage Hospital, Raipur, a private hospital, where he was admitted on 11.4.2021 and discharged on 20.4.2021. He would submit that the petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,73,171/- towards his treatment. He would submit that the petitioner moved an application for reimbursement of medical expenses before the respondent authorities; however, his claim was rejected on the ground that the 3 said hospital was not included in the list of empanelled hospitals issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. He would submit that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate issued an order dated 12.4.2021 whereby the aforesaid hospital was duly approved as a COVID-19 private hospital. It is further argued that in WP(S) No.373 of 2022 where the petitioner of that case availed treatment from a private hospital approved by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, this Court directed the respondent authorities to reimburse the medical expenses incurred. He would pray to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would argue that according to Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, Heritage Hospital was not empanelled for COVID-19 treatment. He would contend that the petitioner obtained treatment from the said hospital without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority; therefore, his claim has rightly been denied by the respondents. He would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) A perusal of Annexure-P/2 dated 12.4.2021 would show that the Heritage Hospital, Raipur was earmarked by the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Raipur for COVID-19 treatment. The petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on 11.4.2021 and discharged on 20.4.2021. The petitioner incurred expenses amounting to 4 Rs.2,73,171/-; however, his claim for medical reimbursement was rejected. 6) Rule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 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) full-time employee getting salary from contingency establishment; (e) member of work-charge 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) part-time employees; (c) honorary employees working under the State Government; (d) daily wages employees; (e) members of All India Services.” 5 7) In the matter of Suman Rakheja vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 562, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in emergent cases, the concerned Government servant is entitled for medical reimbursement for treatment in private hospital even though non-recognized by the State Government. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment states as under :- “3. The appellant is the wife of a deceased government servant who had undergone treatment in the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, which was a private hospital and which was not recognised/approved at that time. For the treatment in that hospital the appellant incurred expenses to the tune of Rs 6,01,166 and the appellant, by way of an application prayed for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred, but the same was declined by the State, on the ground that the hospital wherein the appellant's husband had undergone the treatment was not an approved hospital. 4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in similar case (Annexure P-4) i.e. by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sant Prakash v. State of Haryana1 wherein in an emergency case the patient had to be immediately admitted in hospital, the relief has been granted. In the present case also the appellant's husband had to be rushed to the private hospital because he had developed a paralytic stroke on the left side of the body, as there was blood clotting on the right side of the brain and therefore, was admitted in an emergency condition in the hospital. In the present case the discharge certificate also shows that the case was an emergency one. In Sant Prakash Case the Division Bench held that the petitioner would be entitled for 100% medical expenses at the AIIMS rates and 75% of the expenditure in excess thereto. 5. In the result, in this appeal also, the appellant herein would be entitled to get the refund of the amount of 100% medical expenses at the AIIMS rates and 75% of the expenditure in excess thereto. ” 1 CWP No. 588 of 1998 (P&H) 6 8) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, it is quite vivid that Right to Health is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the provision relating to reimbursement of expenses incurred on medical treatment must be interpreted flexibly. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suman Rakheja (supra) has clearly held that in case of emergency where a Government servant has rushed to a hospital though it is not a Government recognized hospital, the employee is still entitled to reimbursement. 9) Taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(S) No. 373 of 2022, the concerned authorities are directed to process and make payment of the medical bills as claimed by the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10) Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi