Himachal Pradesh High Court orders full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by retired judge

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently directed the State government to reimburse an amount of ₹2,37,630 incurred by its retired High Court judge Justice Arun Kumar Goel and his spouse on an emergency medical treatment in 2016 [Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr]..The division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua also directed the State to pay ₹37,518 to them as travel expenses. Further, the Court also ordered payment of cost of ₹10,000 to the retired judge.The Court rejected the State government’s claim that there had been no urgency to undergo the operation at Mumbai at a non-empanelled hospital..In this regard, the Court noted the certificate issued by the surgeon which indicated the urgency for the surgery.“The State cannot be permitted to override the expert opinion of the Surgeon who opined about the urgency for the surgery. We reject the plea of the State in this regard,” it said.The Court also said that if Justice Goel’s wife had also fallen sick at the same time and underwent treatment as an in-patient there, reimbursement cannot be denied to him “as she was there to take care of him as his companion and wife.”.Justice Goel, who retired as a judge of the High Court in 2005, had undergone a surgery of his spine at Apollo Hospital in Mumbai. His wife had to undergo treatment for back pain in the same hospital.He then raised a claim of ₹5,37,941 including air-fare of ₹37,518 for having taken the treatment under an emergency in Mumbai. The High Court referred his case to the State government for full reimbursement. In 2018, following a communication from the State, the High Court administration released ₹2,14,977 against verified bills of ₹4,52,607 to Goel. The payment was released only partially as Justice Goel’s case was dealt with in accordance with a policy for State Government employees which said the following:.Justice Goel in 2018, 2019 and 2020 wrote to the High Court again demanding full reimbursement, saying that such denial for treatment undertaken in a compelling emergency was arbitrary, unlawful, unfair, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Since he still did not receive the rest of the amount, the octogenarian in 2022 approached the Court on the judicial side through a writ petition. .The Court considered whether the State was right in treating Justice Goel at par with “an ordinary State Government employee” and restricting claims to rates prescribed in CGHS or PGIMER Chandigarh or AIIMS.It opined that the law does not permit the State to treat a judge including the one who has retired, at par with an employee of State or Central government employees.“It has been held by the Supreme Court that Judges cannot be treated as Government employees since Judicial service is not a service in the sense of ‘employment’ and as members of the Judiciary, Judges exercise sovereign judicial power of the State. The parity is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative executive,” the Court said. .The Court in conclusion said that the State’s attempt to deny full reimbursement to the retired judge cannot be accepted.“We find that the petitioner has made out a case for full reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him for medical treatment for himself and his wife as also the travel expenses, and we reject the respondents’ objections for denying the same as being without any merit,” it said while allowing the petition..Advocates CN Singh and Sunil Mohan Goel represented the petitionerAdvocate General Anup Rattan; Additional Advocate Generals Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh; Deputy Advocate Generals Arsh Rattan and Sidharth Jalta represented the State[Read Judgment]