IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta WP.CT NO.11 OF 2026 UNION OF INDA AND OTHERS VS. SMTI. MALTI TIWARI AND OTHERS For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Adv. Reserved on : 24.02.2026 Judgment on : 27.02.2026 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J: 1. The Judgment and order dated November 01, 2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in OA/351/1725/2022, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. By the said impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal allowed the Original application, inter alia, on the following terms: “.... Respondents are accordingly directed to process the case of reimbursement of the medical expenses bills submitted by the applicants amounting to Rs 18,88,852/- within a period of 90 days from the date a copy of this order 2 is received in his office. In the event that the authorities are satisfied from the documents that such expenditure was actually incurred for the treatment of the retired employee, payment will be made within 30 days thereafter to the legal heirs of the deceased retired employee along with an interest of 6% on the amount for the period from the date of filing this O.A. to the date of sanction of payment.” FACTS OF THE CASE 3. The brief facts of the instant case, essential for the purpose of its disposal, are as follows:- a. The husband and father of the Respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘retired employee’) was appointed as a Constable under the Petitioner No.5. He superannuated from service on 31st December, 2019 from the post of Inspector. b. In December 27,2021, it is alleged that the retired employee suddenly experienced onset of disorientation, deviation of angle of mouth and slurring of speech. He was removed to the nearest clinic situated in Garacharama Village, Port Blair, where he was admitted for his treatment. On December 28,2021 a CT Angioraphy of Brain test was done on him, which revealed “1.Aneurysm at right MCA bifurcation-extent as described, 2.Multiple subacute intracts, bilateral centrum semi ovale and chorinic lacunar infracts involving bilateral peri ventricular white matter”. 3 c. Due to seriousness, on December 31, 2021, he was taken to Chennai and admitted him in a hospital , where the patient underwent Right Pterional Craniotomuy and clipping of Aneurysm and finally on February 28, 2022, the retire employee was discharged from the said hospital. d. It is stated that a total sum of Rs. 18,88,852/- was incurred towards his medical treatment from December 31,2021 to February 28, 2022. e. The respondents made an application for medical reimbursement of the amount incurred for his treatment but the it was received a note dated June 21,2022 returning back the medical reimbursement claim of the applicant in Original with the remarks that no such provision is there to settle medical reimbursement after retirement of the Government servant as per medical attendance rule. f. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the Department, the respondents have filed a writ petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta Circuit Bench sitting at Port Blair on September 16, 2022 being WPA No.415 of 2022. After hearing the same, it was held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on September 22, 2022 with a liberty to file afresh on the selfsame cause of action before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the respondents filed Original 4 application before the Central Administrative Tribunal Kolkata Bench, Kolkata. g. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the OA in favour of the applicants/respondents herein and directed the petitioners herein as aforesaid. h. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present writ petitioners have filed this writ petition. CONTENTION OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS 4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, vehemently contended that there exists no statutory or administrative provision permitting reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a retired employee who did not opt for medical reimbursement under Office Memorandum No. 5-14025/23/2013- MS.EHSS dated 29.09.2016, which specifically clarifies that the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, do not apply to pensioners. It was submitted that, during his lifetime, the retired employee neither opted for enrollment under CGHS nor availed of the medical facilities available to pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas. On the contrary, he consciously opted for Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) by submitting the prescribed option form on 19.112019, as he was residing in an area not covered by CGHS facilities. 5 5. It was further argued that the retired employee was already in receipt of Fixed Medical Allowance and, in terms of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, a government servant can claim medical reimbursement for family members except the spouse who receives Fixed Medical Allowance (in short FMA). Learned counsel relied upon the instructions issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 29.09.2016, which unequivocally state that pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas may avail CGHS (both OPD and IPD) benefits only upon registration in the nearest CGHS city after payment of the prescribed subscription. Since the deceased employee never registered himself with CGHS nor availed any such facilities, the respondents, according to the petitioners, are not entitled to medical reimbursement. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, directed reimbursement of ₹18,88,852/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, without adhering to the binding Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2016, thereby committing a manifest error of law. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 6. Per contra, Mr. Binnu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, strenuously opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners. He contended that it is an undisputed fact that the retired employee was entitled to medical facilities during his service, and such benefit cannot be denied 6 merely on the ground of retirement. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 694 of 2015], learned counsel submitted that the right to medical treatment is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and a retired government servant is entitled to medical benefits either during service or after retirement. It was argued that denial of reimbursement solely on the ground of non- empanelment or non-registration under CGHS is impermissible. The real test, according to learned counsel, is the factum of treatment and the genuineness of the medical expenditure incurred. 7. It was further submitted that, at the time of retirement, the retired employee was never informed by the authorities about the implications of the Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2016, nor was he furnished with any form explaining the available options for medical facilities post-retirement. Even assuming that he did not opt for CGHS benefits, reimbursement of indoor patient treatment (IPD) expenses cannot be denied where the retired employee suffered from a serious illness and incurred substantial medical expenditure. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that similarly situated pensioners have been granted medical reimbursement by this Court, other High Courts, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several matters. Therefore, the respondents cannot be deprived. It was contended that the learned Tribunal, after relying upon binding 7 judicial precedents, rightly concluded that retired employees are also entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment. 9. Finally, learned counsel further draws the attention of this court to OM Z15025/5B/2017/DIR/CGHS/Pt dated 21st July,2017 and OM dated 13th November, 2023, which negates the OM No5- 14025/23/2013-MS.EHSS dated 29.09.2016 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments to bolster his aforesaid submissions: i. Union of India & Others vs. V.A.Abraham, WPCT No. 213 of 2004; ii. Union of India & Others vs. V.A.Abraham, SLP (C) No. 6805/2014 of 2014 judgement dated 5th May,2014; iii. Lt. Governor & Others vs. Neamat Khan, WPCT No. 169 of 2013; iv. Union of India & Others vs. S.R.Ghosal, WPCT No. 30 of 2022; v. Union of India & Others vs. Rah Kumar Saw, WPCT No. 44 of 2023; vi. Lt. Governor Union of India & others vs. Mohammed Haneef and Another, WPCT No. 46 of 2024; vii. Mohammed Hanif vs. Admiral (Retd) D.k Joshi & others CPAN 19 of 2025, In WPCT 46 of 2024 8 viii. Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 694 of 2015 ix. Consumer Education and Research Centre and others vs. Union of India and others1. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT 11. This court carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, we find the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment of the retired employee of the A&N Administration Education Department was rejected on the ground that as per Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's OM-5-14025/23/2013-MS EHSS dated 29.9.2016 that CS (MA) Rules 1944 are not applicable to pensioners, who did not opted the options available according to the said Memo. 12. At the outset, the foundational facts are not in dispute. The retired employee retired from service on 31st December, 2019 and, subsequent to his retirement, suffered from a serious and life- threatening ailment, namely the onset of disorientation, deviation of the angle of the mouth and slurring of speech. He was taken to the nearest clinic in Garacharama Village, Port Blair, where he was 1 1995 (3) SCC 42 9 admitted for treatment. On 28th December, 2021, a CT Angiography of the brain was done on him, which revealed the following:- “1.Aneurysm at right MCA bifurcation-extent as described, 2.Multiple subacute intracts, bilateral centrum semi ovale and chorinic lacunar infracts involving bilateral peri ventricular white matter” 13. Due to seriousness, on December 31, 2021, he was taken to Chennai and admitted to a hospital, where the patient underwent Right Pterional Craniotomy and clipping of Aneurysm, and finally on February 28, 2022, the retired employee was discharged from the said hospital. It is also undisputed that substantial medical expenditure amounting to ₹18,88,852/- was incurred for such treatment and that the claim for reimbursement was rejected by the authorities solely on the ground that the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 do not apply to pensioners in view of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2016 and that the retired employee had opted for FMA. 14. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the mere fact that the retired employee had opted for FMA, or had not registered himself under CGHS after retirement, disentitles his legal heirs from claiming reimbursement of medical expenses actually incurred for life-saving treatment. 10 15. On this issue, a catena of judgments, passed by various judicial fora, namely, the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, from time to time, have upheld the need and the right of the pensioners under CS (MA) Rules to reimbursement of medical expenses. 16. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents have dealt with a similar issue. Most of the Hon’ble courts held 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 (3), 41, 43 48 A and all related to Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person as such reimbursement of medical bill should not be denied and ultimately allowed the reimbursement of medical bills to the petitioner(s). 17. G.I Min. of Health & F.W. O.M No.S-14025/4/96-MS dated 05-06- 1998 under heading ‘Extension of CS (MA), Rules,1944, to pensioners residing in area not covered by CGHS’ is reproduced hereinbelow in verbatim. “The undersigned is directed to refer to the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, O.M. No. 45/74/97-PP&PW(C), dated 15-4-1997 on the above subject and to say that it has been decided by this Ministry that the pensioners should not be deprived of medical facilities from the Government in their old age when they require them 11 most. This Ministry has, therefore, no objection to the extension of the CS (MA) Rules to the Central Government pensioners residing in non- CGHS areas as recommended by the Pay Commission. However, the responsibility of administrating the CS (MA) Rules for pensioners can- not be handled by CGHS. It should be administered by the respective Ministries/Departments as in the case of serving employees covered under CS (MA) Rules, 1944. The Department of Pension and Pen- sioners Welfare would need to have the modalities worked out for the implementation of the rules in consultation with the Ministries/Departments prior to the measure being introduced to avoid any hardships to the pensioners. The pensioners could be given a one- time option at the time of their retirement for medical coverage under CGHS or under the CS (MA) Rules, 1944. In case of a pensioner opting for CGHS fa-cities, he/she would have to get himself/herself registered in the near-rif CGHS city for availing of hospitalization facilities. In such cases, the reimbursement claims would be processed by the Additional Director, CGHS of the concerned city. For those opting for medical facilities under the CS (MA) Rules, the scrutiny of the claims would have to be done by the parent office as in the case of serving employees and the payment would also have to be made by them. The list of AMAs to be appointed under CS (MA) Rules would be decided Ministry/Department-wise as provided under the rules. The benefi- ciaries of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 would be entitled to avail of hos- pitalization facilities as provided under these rules”. The Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare are re- quested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly”. 18. If we go by the aforesaid Memo, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare clearly and explicitly decided that the pensioners should not be deprived of medical facilities from the Government in their old age when they require them most. This Ministry has, therefore, no 12 objection to the extension of the CS (MA) Rules to the Central Government pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas as recommended by the Pay Commission, subject to certain conditions. 19. Memo dated 29.09.2016 specify the availability of medical facilities to the Central Government pensioners in two categories: a) Pensioners residing in CGHS covered area: b) Pensioners residing in non-CGHS area: 1. They can avail Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) @ 500/- per month. 2. They can also avail benefits of CGHS (OPD and IPO) by registering themselves in the nearest CGHS city after making the required subscription. 3. They also have the option to avail FMA, for OPD treatment and CGHS for IPD treatments after making the required subscriptions as per CGHS guidelines. 20. In the said Memo, it is also given responsibility to all departments/Ministries to inform their employees proceeding for retirement regarding the above options for medical facilities available to the Central Government pensioners, but no such information was given to the retired employee. The petitioners claim that the retired employee, Hari Lall Tiwari, the husband and father of the respondents, had opted to claim fixed medical allowance by submitting the form on Novermber 19, 2019, as he was residing in 13 area where no CGHS Medical facilities were available. Duty cast upon the authority to inform the employee about the facilities at the time of retirement. No such obligation is imposed on the retired employee; therefore, the petitioners cannot avoid the responsibility cast upon them. 21. Needless to reiterate that, fundamental human of right to life includes right to live a life in a meaningful and purposeful manner with dignity. In a welfare state like ours, the state is under an obligation to provide free medical assistance to its employees, especially when the hospital run by the Administration, where the petitioner was immediately admitted after unfortunately and unexpectedly admitted under compelling circumstances, the patient had to take treatment from a hospital at mainland. But after getting such treatment, the concerned Petitioners do not hesitate to reject the prayer for reimbursement in the guise of the Memo. 22. "may take their own decision" in the aforesaid office memorandum does not give Administration right to take any arbitrary or whimsical decision but it must be based on sound reasonable discretion. The aforesaid clause of the Office Memorandum makes it specific by giving liberty to the Administration to take their own decision in this regard and not to sit tight over the matter in order to show an indifferent attitude towards their own employee who had served under the Administration for a considerable period of time. 14 23. The judgments relied upon by the respondents indicate that a retired Government employee cannot be denied the medical facilities which he was entitled to during his employment. In fact, the Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha (Supra) held that in such cases, the authorities are only bound to ensure that the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by the doctors/Hospitals concerned, and a decision has to be taken by showing a humanitarian approach. In the present case, it is not the stand of the Petitioners that the claimant has not received treatment from the mainland, or that he has not incurred the medical expenditure which he has actually sought for. 24. In Shiv Kant Jha (Supra), which was decided on April 13, 2018, Their Lordship specifically held in paragraph 13 as follows:- “It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking 15 treatment in speciality hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said hospital is not included in the Government order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/ Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court." 25. In the said Judgment, it was further held that the relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot mechanically deny the medical bills, depriving an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. 26. The same principle has been reiterated consistently in a catena of decisions, including Union of India v. V.A. Abraham (Supra), Lt. Governor v. Neamat Khan (Supra), and Union of India v. S.R. Ghosal (Supra), and other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. These decisions uniformly recognise that pensioners form a vulnerable class and that medical reimbursement claims, particularly those arising out of serious illnesses and emergency treatment, must be considered with a 16 humane and pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic or hyper- technical one. 27. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the medical treatment was genuine, necessary, and supported by documentary evidence. There is no allegation of fabrication, exaggeration, or lack of nexus between the treatment and the expenditure claimed. The rejection of the claim was founded solely on the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2016 and the option exercised for FMA. Such reasoning, in the considered view of this Court, is legally unsustainable in light of the constitutional mandate under Article 21 and the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 28. The contention of the writ petitioners that opting for FMA constitutes an absolute bar to medical reimbursement also cannot be accepted. The petitioners’ contention that the respondents are not entitled for reimbursement medical bills of the retire employee on the basis of OM-5-14025/23/2013-MS EHSS dated 29.9.2016 although it was nagated by subsequent OM- Z15025/5B/2017/DIR/CGHS/Pt dated 21st July, 2017 issued by Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Health & family welfare Directorate General of CGHS. 29. The OM dated 21st July, 2017 is reproduced herein below in verbatim for the sake of convenience:- 17 “ Subject- Serving employees/pensioners of Union Territories are not entitled to CGHS facilities. With reference to the above mentioned subject it has come to the notice that some CGHS cards were inadvertently issued to Pensioners of Union Territones in some cities. In this regard it is clarified that Serving employees/ pensioners of Union Territories are not entitied to CGHS facilities care must be taken to ensure that CGHS Cards are not issued to such Individuals. In such cases, where CGHS cards were issued Inadvertently the individuals concerned may be informed of the mistake and cancel such cards with a notice of one month’s grace period and the balance CGHS subscription for the remaining years may be returned to such individuals”. 30. Therefore, we are fully convinced that the respondents are entitled to reimbursement of the medical bills. It is trite law that if two plausible views are available on the issue, then the one that is suitable to the aggrieved party should be accepted. 31. Fixed Medical Allowance is intended to meet routine and minor medical expenses, and therefore, cannot be construed as a waiver of the right to reimbursement for extraordinary or specialised medical treatment, particularly in cases involving life-threatening diseases. To hold otherwise would amount to placing an unreasonable restriction on the right to health of retired employees and pensioners. 32. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that there is no infirmity or palpable illegality in the impugned order passed by the Central 18 Administrative Tribunal on November 11, 2025. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby affirmed. 33. In the result, the present writ petition being WP.CT 11 of 2026 filed by the Petitioners is hereby dismissed without order as to costs. 34. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 35. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 36. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) I Agree. (Debangsu Basak, J.)