JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of calculation sheet dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure P-9) to the extent his medical reimbursement claim was restricted to Rs. 1,38,422/- against the total bill of Rs.3,54,647/-, and for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the remaining amount of Rs. 2,16,225/- along with interest.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer from the Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Government of Haryana. In January 2018, while at Hisar, he suffered a serious medical emergency and was admitted to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where his condition deteriorated and he went into coma. On medical advice, he was shifted to Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, on 16.01.2018 and was admitted in the Emergency ICU. He was diagnosed with viral meningoencephalitis and remained admitted till 25.01.2018. The total expenditure incurred on his treatment at the said hospital amounted to Rs. 3,54,647/-.

3. The petitioner obtained an essentiality certificate from the hospital and an emergency certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Gurugram, and thereafter submitted his reimbursement claim along with requisite documents to the competent authority. The respondents processed the claim in terms of Government Memo dated 06.05.2005 governing reimbursement policy and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,38,422/- calculated as per PGIMER/AIIMS rates, which was credited to the petitioner’s bank account.

4. Aggrieved by the reduction, and upon obtaining the calculation sheet dated 17.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned action of the respondents in restricting the medical reimbursement to Rs.1,38,422/- against the actual expenditure of Rs.3,54,647/- is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer, suffered a life-threatening medical emergency in January 2018, went into coma, and was initially admitted at Hisar. On the advice of doctors and in order to save his life, he was immediately shifted to Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, where he remained admitted in the Emergency ICU from 16.01.2018 to 25.01.2018 and was diagnosed with viral meningoencephalitis. It is urged that the emergency nature of the treatment is not in dispute and stands duly certified by the competent Civil Surgeon.

6. It is argued that in such emergent circumstances, neither the petitioner nor his family members were in a position to ascertain whether the hospital was empanelled with the State Government. The paramount consideration was preservation of life. Learned counsel submits that the right to health and medical care is an integral facet of Article 21, and once the factum of treatment and emergency is established, reimbursement cannot be denied or curtailed on hypertechnical grounds of empanelment.

7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, wherein in similar circumstances of emergency treatment in a private hospital, the Apex Court directed reimbursement of the balance amount, holding that the State cannot deny legitimate medical claims of a government servant on technicalities. It is submitted that the ratio squarely applies to the present case.

8. Learned counsel further contends that the respondents reduced the claim mechanically to PGI/AIIMS rates without furnishing any prior notice, hearing, or reasoned order to the petitioner. The calculation sheet (Annexure P-9) was supplied only after recourse to the Right to Information Act. Such unilateral reduction without affording opportunity violates principles of natural justice.

9. It is also urged that even as per the State policy, reimbursemen