Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shivanand Basayya Hiremath, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at respondent No.5 school on 3rd June 1996, with approval from the Education Officer on 16th June 1997. His son Abhijeet, aged 17, suffered from Acute Mixed Phenotypic Leukemia and was admitted to Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Pune, a recognized hospital under the State Government's medical reimbursement policy, on 19th January 2018. The petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.18,03,237/- for his son's treatment. Unfortunately, Abhijeet passed away on 22nd February 2018. The petitioner submitted a proposal for reimbursement through the school, which was forwarded by the Education Officer to the Deputy Director of Health Services (respondent No.2). However, respondent No.2 rejected the proposal by order dated 23rd April 2021, solely on the ground that the patient (the son) had died. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court considered the policy of the State Government regarding medical reimbursement for government employees and their family members. The court noted that the hospital was recognized and the treatment was for a specified illness. The court held that the death of the patient during treatment does not affect the employee's entitlement to reimbursement, as the policy does not contain any such condition. The court quashed the impugned order dated 23rd April 2021 and directed respondent No.2 to sanction the proposal and reimburse the amount of Rs.18,03,237/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Medical Reimbursement - Government Employee - Recognized Hospital - Death of Patient - The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, sought reimbursement of Rs.18,03,237/- incurred for treatment of his son at Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, a recognized hospital. The son died during treatment. The respondent No.2 rejected the claim on the ground that the son died. The Court held that the death of the patient does not disentitle the employee from reimbursement as per the policy. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed reimbursement within four weeks. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a government employee, is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment of his son at a recognized hospital, even though the son died during the treatment.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd April 2021 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to sanction the proposal and reimburse the amount of Rs.18,03,237/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Medical reimbursement
- Government employee
- Recognized hospital
- Family member
- Death during treatment
- Policy interpretation
Case Details
Writ Petition (St.) No. 1286 of 2023
M. S. Karnik, Ajit B. Kadethankar
Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Sagar Mane, Rushikesh Jagdale i/b Ashwini Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner; Vishwasrao Deokar for respondent No.5; V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent - State
Shivanand Basayya Hiremath
The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director, Health Services, The Deputy Director of Education, The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, Bharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal’s Asha Marathi Vidyalay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order rejecting medical reimbursement and direction to sanction reimbursement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 23rd April 2021 passed by respondent No.2 and direction to sanction proposal and reimburse Rs.18,03,237/-.
Filing Reason
Respondent No.2 rejected the petitioner's proposal for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment of his son at a recognized hospital on the ground that the son died during treatment.
Previous Decisions
The Education Officer forwarded the proposal to respondent No.2, who rejected it by order dated 23rd April 2021.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment of his son at a recognized hospital despite the son's death during treatment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the hospital is recognized and the treatment was for a specified illness; death of the patient does not disentitle reimbursement.
Respondent No.2 rejected the claim solely on the ground that the patient died.
Ratio Decidendi
The death of the patient during treatment does not disentitle the employee from reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a recognized hospital, as the policy does not contain any such condition.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for following substantive relief :- (b) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd April 2021 passed by the Respondent No.2, and accordingly the Respondent No.2 may be directed to sanction the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.3 and direct reimbursement of Rs.18,03,237/- towards the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the Petitioner for the medical treatment of his son.
The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at the respondent No.5 – school on 3rd June 1996.
The petitioner’s son Abhijeet, aged 17 years, was suffering from Acute Mixed Phenotypic Leukemia.
Unfortunately, Abhijeet passed away on 22nd February 2018.
During the aforesaid period, the petitioner spent Rs. 18,03,237/- for medical treatment, including indoor admission, treatment, medicines etc.
As per the policy of the State Government, the medical expenditure incurred by the Government employees for themselves and their family members is reimbursed.
The only ground on which the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected is that the patient died.
In our opinion, the death of the patient cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical expenditure.
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd April 2021 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to sanction the proposal and reimburse the amount of Rs.18,03,237/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of this order.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, challenging the order dated 23rd April 2021 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his claim for medical reimbursement. The petition was heard and decided on 16th December 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
