1 CGHC010324492026 2026:CGHC:42382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6281 of 2026 Trilok Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Prakash Sahu Aged About 32 Years Class Iv Employee (Sweeper), Dr. Bhimrao Ram Ambedkar Hospital (Mekahara) Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary/ Secretary, (Also The Chairman Of The Committee Constituted Under Rule 11 Of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013) Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Medical Education North Block Sector-19, Swaasth Bhawan 2nd Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Cum Superintendent Dr. Bhimraoramji Ambedkar Hospital (Mekahara) Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.09.30 16:17:58 +0530 2 4 - Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent Office Of Civil Surgent Chief Hospital Superintendent District Hospital Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri U.N.S. Deo, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Shahil Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 29.09.2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee, is questioning the order contained in Annexure P/1, whereby his claim for medical reimbursement towards the cataract operation of his wife has been rejected. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse the verified amount of medical reimbursement claimed by him towards the cataract operation of his wife. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Annexure P/2, i.e. the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, submits that the wife/husband of an employee is included within the definition of “Family” under the said 3 Rules. He submits that the petitioner had raised a claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred towards the cataract operation of his wife, and the medical bills have been annexed with the petition. Learned counsel further refers to the treatment slip issued by Vivekananda Eye Hospital & Research Centre and submits that the said hospital is a Government-recognized private hospital, as is evident from Annexure P/3 dated 07.03.2024 issued by the Health Education Department, wherein, at serial No. 6, the name of Vivekananda Eye Hospital & Research Centre is enlisted as a recognized private hospital. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s wife underwent cataract operations in both eyes and the medical bills submitted by the petitioner were duly verified, as reflected from Annexure P/7 at pages 46 and 47. After verification, the amount payable towards the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner was found to be Rs.41,158/- for the right eye and Rs.31,158/- for the left eye. However, the petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide Annexure P/1 solely on the ground that the cataract operation of the petitioner’s wife was not approved as an emergency case. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the claim of a similarly situated employee, placed on record as Annexure P/9, particularly serial No. 22, and submits that in a similar case, the claim towards the medical treatment of the employee’s mother namely Smt. Savita Gadge was approved and the expenditure incurred towards the cataract operation was reimbursed. He further refers to the reply/return filed by the respondents and submits that Annexure R/1 contains the medical slip/discharge summary issued by Vivekananda Eye Hospital & Research Centre in respect of the similarly situated person, namely, Smt. Savita Gadge. He submits that the discharge summary of the petitioner’s wife, annexed as Annexure P/10, and the discharge summary of the similarly situated employee’s mother disclose the same diagnosis and the same medical procedure. Despite the same, the petitioner’s claim has been rejected on the ground that the treatment in question was not an emergency case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by referring to the reply and Annexure R/1 as well as Annexure P/1, submits that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the competent authority and, as the cataract operation of 5 the petitioner’s wife was not found to be an emergency case, the claim for reimbursement was rejected. It is submitted that, in the case of the similarly situated employee, the cataract operation was found to be an emergency case and, therefore, the claim was reimbursed. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Committee constituted under the relevant Rules considered the case of the petitioner and found that the treatment in question did not constitute an emergency, and accordingly, the claim was rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. The relevant Rules, namely, the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, include the wife/husband of an employee within the definition of “Family” under Rule 3. In the present case, the petitioner’s wife underwent cataract operations at Vivekananda Eye Hospital & Research Centre, which is admittedly a Government-recognized private hospital. The petitioner thereafter submitted his claim for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred towards the said treatment. 6 8. So far as the medical bills and the amount claimed by the petitioner are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the respondents. The amount of medical expenditure claimed by the petitioner has also been duly verified by the competent authority, as reflected from Annexure P/7. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the treatment undergone by the petitioner’s wife, the medical bills submitted by the petitioner, or the amount verified by the competent authority. 9. The sole reason for rejection of the petitioner’s claim, as reflected from Annexure P/1, is that the treatment of the petitioner’s wife was not considered to be an emergency case. 10. At this stage, the case of the similarly situated employee assumes significance. From a perusal of the discharge summary of the similarly situated employee’s mother and the discharge summary of the petitioner’s wife, it appears that both documents have been issued by the same hospital, namely, Vivekananda Eye Hospital & Research Centre, which is a Government-recognized private hospital. The diagnosis recorded in both cases is the same and the medical procedure undertaken is also the same. In such 7 circumstances, mere rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the treatment of his wife was not an emergency case, while the claim of a similarly situated employee in respect of the same nature of treatment at the same recognized hospital has been allowed, does not appear to be justified. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate any material distinction between the two cases so as to justify such differential treatment. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Right to health is fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and self-preservation of life is included in right to life. The provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment has to be construed liberally. 11. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim, therefore, appears to have resulted in discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis a similarly situated employee. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for medical reimbursement, contained in Annexure P/1, is hereby quashed. 8 13. The respondents/competent authority are directed to reimburse the medical expenses claimed by the petitioner and duly verified by the competent authority vide Annexure P/7, within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apprise the order of this Court to the competent authority for necessary compliance. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib