Right to health is a fundamental right, and government employees are entitled to full reimbursement for medical expenses incurred, irrespective of outdated reimbursement policies.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The respondents in O.A.(EKM) No.484 of 2019 have filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (for short the ’Tribunal) Thiruvananthapuram, in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent was working as HSA in the Government Higher Secondary School, Neeleswaram. He was diagnosed with Liver Cirrhosis and had to undergo Liver Transplantation. On the basis of the reference made by the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, as well as on the basis of the assessment of the Medical Board constituted in the Government Medical College, Kozhikode, the respondent was found to have advanced Cirrhosis of Liver. The Medical Board opined that he required Liver Transplantation. Accordingly, he underwent Liver Transplantation at Aster Malabar Institute of Medical Science, Kozhikode, on 14.06.2016. In the meanwhile, the respondent submitted an application for interest free medical advance and on the basis of the recommendations made by the 2^nd petitioner Director of Public Instructions, a sum of Rs.18 lakhs was sanctioned to him towards medical advance. Subsequently, the respondent submitted utilisation certificate stating the actual expenditure incurred by him as Rs.16,98,171/-. Thereafter, the respondent received Annexure A5 communication dated 28.01.2019 from the 3^rd petitioner Deputy Director of Education, inter alia stating that the 2^nd petitioner Director of Public Instructions, has admitted only a sum of Rs.11,47,725/- towards treatment expenses and the respondent has to repay the balance amount. He was directed to remit the amount in excess of 80% of the admitted amount before the Government and to produce the challan. Challenging Annexure A5 communication, the respondent filed the original application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking setting aside of Annexure A5; a direction against petitioners 2 and 5 to reimburse the entire amount of claim without any reduction in respect of the treatment undergone by the respondent; and a declaration that the respondent is entitled to be reimbursed with full amount of IFMA and no amount is liable to be reduced.

3. The 3^rd petitioner herein filed a reply statement dated 16.08.2019 before the Tribunal opposing the reliefs sought in the original application, producing therewith Annexures R3(a) and R3(b) documents. The 5^th petitioner herein filed a reply statement dated 02.11.2021 in the original application, denying the averments in the original application. The learned Government Pleader filed an additional statement dated 30.11.2021 in the original application, producing therewith Annexures R5(a) to R5(g) documents.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal allowed the original application relying on various judgments of the Apex Court as well as the provisions governing the field. Paragraphs 25 to 30 and the last paragraph of that order read thus;

"25. Despite all these provisions and judgments declaring that the right to health and right to medical aid, in turn, is the right to life under Article 21 and the State is duty bound under Article 47 and in the light of the international covenant and Universal Declaration of Human rights, the respondents are denying the claim for medical attendance on the basis of rates fixed about two decades ago. That would show that Government do not look into the factual circumstances in total ign