Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ appeal filed by the Union of India and others against an order of a single judge of the Karnataka High Court, which directed the appellants to reimburse medical expenses to the respondent, Sri L. Krishnamurthy, a former State Information Commissioner of Karnataka. The respondent had sought reimbursement under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) for medical treatment availed by him. The single judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondent was entitled to reimbursement as per CGHS rules. The appellants challenged the order on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and limitation. The Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice K V Aravind, dismissed the appeal, upholding the single judge's order. The court held that the right to health is a fundamental right and the respondent was entitled to medical reimbursement. It rejected the objections regarding territorial jurisdiction, noting that part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction as the respondent resided in Karnataka and the CGHS office in Bengaluru was involved. On limitation, the court observed that the petition was filed within a reasonable time and there was no delay. The court also dealt with a contempt petition filed by the respondent, alleging wilful disobedience of the single judge's order. The Division Bench found that the appellants had not complied with the order and were liable for contempt, but granted them an opportunity to comply within a specified period to purge the contempt. The appeal was dismissed, and the contempt petition was disposed of with directions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Health - Medical Reimbursement - CGHS Rules - The respondent, a former State Information Commissioner, sought reimbursement of medical expenses under CGHS. The single judge allowed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench held that the right to health is a fundamental right and the respondent was entitled to reimbursement as per CGHS rules. The court rejected the appellants' objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and limitation, noting that the cause of action arose partly within the court's jurisdiction and the petition was filed within a reasonable time. (Paras 1-10) B) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Non-Compliance of Order - The respondent filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the single judge's order. The Division Bench held that the appellants had not complied with the order and were liable for contempt. However, the court gave them an opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with the order within a specified period. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking medical reimbursement was maintainable on grounds of territorial jurisdiction and limitation, and whether the appellants were liable for contempt for non-compliance of the single judge's order.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the single judge order. The contempt petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to comply with the order within a specified period to purge the contempt.
Law Points
- Medical reimbursement under CGHS rules
- Right to health
- Limitation for filing writ petition
- Territorial jurisdiction of High Court
- Contempt of court for non-compliance of order
