The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has directed the state government to process and release the medical reimbursement claim of a deceased judicial officer, effectively overturning an administrative order that had denied the funds for years. In a decisive judgment, the division bench consisting of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Bipin Gupta held that the Law and Legal Affairs Department had exceeded its authority when it unilaterally rejected the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the late Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur for a life-saving kidney transplant.

The petitioner, a former member of the Higher Judicial Services, had sought reimbursement under the Rajasthan Judicial Officers (Medical Facilities) Rules, 2008. The legal dispute centered on the compliance with the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. The deceased judge had obtained prior authorization from the State Authorization Committees of both Rajasthan, where he resided, and West Bengal, the state where the surgery was performed and the donor resided. Despite these clearances, the Law and Legal Affairs Department later contested the claims, arguing that the mandatory requirements of Section 9(5) of the 1994 Act—specifically the need for a joint application by the donor and recipient—had not been satisfied.

Overstepping Administrative Authority

The High Court was scathing in its assessment of the department's decision to sit in judgment over the authorization certificates already granted by competent statutory bodies. The bench clarified that the Law and Legal Affairs Department lacked the legal mandate to act as an appellate authority under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.

"The Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department is not the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1994 and he cannot sit over the certificate of authorization granted by the State Authorization Committee," the court observed. The ruling emphasized that the department had no lawful grounds to examine the validity of the authorization already approved by two distinct state committees. The court further noted that the department failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its claim of procedural lapses, stating, "There is no material before the Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department to say that the application was not jointly submitted."

By interfering with the findings of the Authorization Committees, the Law and Legal Affairs Department effectively blocked a legitimate claim, leading to prolonged litigation that ultimately fell to the legal representatives of the deceased officer to pursue. The court held that the department’s attempt to invalidate the authorization post-facto was fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the statutory framework governing the transplantation of human organs.

Judicial Medical Rights and Rule 5

Under the Rajasthan Judicial Officers (Medical Facilities) Rules, 2008, specifically Rule 5, judicial officers are entitled to full reimbursement for medical treatments even when obtained at private or non-notified facilities. The rule explicitly removes any financial ceiling on reimbursements for critical medical procedures, including kidney transplantation and open-heart surgery.

The bench reaffirmed that as a retired judicial officer, the late Chandra Narayan Mathur was entitled to parity in reimbursement with those treated in state-notified hospitals. The "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) issued by the Rajasthan Authorization Committee had initially been qualified with a disclaimer regarding financial liability, but the High Court determined that this did not abrogate the state’s duty to follow its own established medical reimbursement rules for its officers. The court found that the department’s reliance on technicalities regarding the "joint application" process did not negate the underlying entitlement granted by the 2008 Rules, particularly when the medical necessity and the fact of the surgery performed under authorized oversight were undisputed.

Financial Redress and Judicial Oversight

In addition to ordering the immediate release of the withheld medical expenses, the court imposed a significant cost of ₹50,000 to be paid by the Law and Legal Affairs Department to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. The court further mandated that the reimbursement claim be paid with interest at a rate of 12% per annum, calculated from the date of the original claim until the final payment is disbursed.

This financial directive serves as a strong signal from the judiciary regarding the protection of retirement benefits for former judicial officers. By ensuring that the reimbursement is accompanied by interest and costs, the High Court has highlighted the necessity of prompt administrative compliance in matters concerning medical welfare. The court ordered that the total sum be apportioned equally among the three legal representatives of the deceased.

The state government has been given a period of one month from the date of the judgment to comply with the directive. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding its own service rules and protecting the rights of retired officers against arbitrary bureaucratic obstruction. The order now stands as a binding precedent ensuring that authorization, once granted by competent state committees, cannot be second-guessed by administrative departments lacking appellate jurisdiction. The resolution of this matter provides long-overdue relief to the family of the late judicial officer, confirming that the state's obligation to cover medical expenses for its officers remains absolute under the existing rules. All pending applications associated with the petition were formally disposed of, marking the final stage of a protracted legal journey.