IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR)

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

WP.CT NO.9 OF 2026

UNION OF INDA AND OTHERS

VS.

SHRI AMSON AND ANOTHER

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Adv.

Reserved on : 24.02.2026

Judgment on : 27.02.2026

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The Judgment and order dated November 01, 2025 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in

OA/351/1293/2023, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. By the said impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal allowed the

Original Application, inter alia, on the following terms:

“.... Respondent Nos. 6 is accordingly directed to process the

case of reimbursement of the medical expenses bills submitted

by the applicants amounting to Rs.29,06,535/- within a period

of 90 days from the date a copy of this order is received in his

2

office. In the event that the authorities are satisfied from the

documents that such expenditure was actually incurred for the

treatment of the retired employee, payment will be made within

30 days thereafter to the legal heirs of the deceased employee

along with an interest of 6% on the amount for the period from

the date of filing this O.A. to the date of sanction of payment”

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the instant case, essential for the purpose of its

disposal, are as follows:-

a. The father of the Respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as

‘retired employee’) was appointed as a graduate-trained teacher

under the Petitioner No.8. He superannuated from service on 31

st

July, 2018.

b. In October 2019, it is alleged that the retired employee developed

severe pain in his head and was admitted at G.B. Pant Hospital,

Port Blair. As his condition did not improve, he was referred to

Apollo Hospital, Chennai, for advanced medical treatment. Upon

discharge, he was advised to receive further specialised treatment

at Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai.

c. On January 10, 2020, the retired employee underwent surgery for

left Temporoparietal Glioblastoma, and was subsequently

discharged therefrom on March 11, 2020. It is stated that a total

sum of Rs. 29,06,535/- was incurred towards his medical

treatment. On June 8, 2020 and again on June 15, 2020, the

3

mother of the Respondents herein, who was then serving as a

government employee, submitted two separate applications before

the Petitioner No. 7 seeking reimbursement of the medical

expenses incurred for the treatment of the retired employee. By

the memo dated October 12, 2020, the office of the Petitioner No.

7 informed the mother of the respondents that the reimbursement

of the medical claim is not admissible as per the Central Service

(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 and in accordance with the

instruction contained in the Government of India, Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare letter dated September 29, 2020.

During the pendency of the application, the retired employee

succumbed to death.

d. On February 28, 2021, the mother of the respondents also retired

from service. Thereafter, she approached various authorities

seeking reimbursement of the medical bills. The Petitioner No.7 by

letter dated October 11, 2022, returned the said medical claim

and advised her to pursue the matter with the parent department,

i.e. The Directorate of Education. As per the advice of the

Petitioner no. 7, the medical bills were submitted to the Petitioner

no. 8, but the same were rejected with the remarks that the Rules

of 1944 did not apply to retired employees/pensioners, relying

upon OM No.5-14025/23/2013-MS.EHSS dated 29.09.2016.

4

e. Aggrieved by such rejection, the respondents approached the

Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application.

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the OA in favour

of the applicants/respondents herein and directed Petitioner no. 8

to consider and dispose of the medical bills. The Tribunal noted

that although the retired employee had opted for Fixed Medical

Allowance by exercising the option on 1st October 2020, on the

ground that he was residing in an area not covered by CGHS

facilities, the claim required consideration.

f. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order of the Tribunal, the

present writ petitioners have filed this instant writ petition.

CONTENTION OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS

4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ

petitioners, vehemently contended that there exists no statutory or

administrative provision permitting reimbursement of medical

expenses incurred by a retired employee who did not opt for medical

reimbursement under Office Memorandum No. 5-14025/23/2013-

MS.EHSS dated 29.09.2016, which specifically clarifies that the

Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, do not apply to

pensioners. It was submitted that, during his lifetime, the retired

employee neither opted for enrollment under CGHS nor availed of

the medical facilities available to pensioners residing in non-CGHS

areas. On the contrary, he consciously opted for Fixed Medical

5

Allowance (FMA) by submitting the prescribed option form on 1

October 2020, as he was residing in an area not covered by CGHS

facilities.

5. It was further argued that the retired employee was already in

receipt of Fixed Medical Allowance and, in terms of the CS (MA)

Rules, 1944, a government servant can claim medical

reimbursement for family members except the spouse who receives

Fixed Medical Allowance (in short FMA). Learned counsel relied

upon the instructions issued by the Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare dated 29.09.2016, which unequivocally state that

pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas may avail CGHS (both OPD

and IPD) benefits only upon registration in the nearest CGHS city

after payment of the prescribed subscription. Since the deceased

employee never registered himself with CGHS nor availed any such

facilities, the respondents, according to the petitioners, are not

entitled to medical reimbursement. It was submitted that the

learned Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, directed

reimbursement of ₹29,06,535/- with interest at 6% per annum,

without adhering to the binding Office Memorandum dated

29.09.2016, thereby committing a manifest error of law.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

6. Per contra, Mr. Binnu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents, strenuously opposed the submissions advanced

6

on behalf of the writ petitioners. He contended that it is an

undisputed fact that the retired employee was entitled to medical

facilities during his service, and such benefit cannot be denied

merely on the ground of retirement. Relying upon the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India [Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 694 of 2015], learned counsel submitted that

the right to medical treatment is an integral facet of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, and a retired government servant is entitled to

medical benefits either during service or after retirement. It was

argued that denial of reimbursement solely on the ground of non-

empanelment or non-registration under CGHS is impermissible. The

real test, according to learned counsel, is the factum of treatment

and the genuineness of the medical expenditure incurred.

7. It was further submitted that, at the time of retirement, the retired

employee was never informed by the authorities about the

implications of the Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2016, nor was

he furnished with any form explaining the available options for

medical facilities post-retirement. Even assuming that he did not opt

for CGHS benefits, reimbursement of indoor patient treatment (IPD)

expenses cannot be denied where the retired employee suffered from

a serious illness and incurred substantial medical expenditure.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that similarly situated

pensioners have been granted medical reimbursement by this Court,

7

other High Courts, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several

matters. Therefore, the respondents cannot be deprived. It was

contended that the learned Tribunal, after relying upon binding

judicial precedents, rightly concluded that retired employees are also

entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for

treatment.

9. Finally, learned counsel further draws the attention of this court to

OM Z15025/5B/2017/DIR/CGHS/Pt dated 21

st

July,2017 and OM

dated 13

th

November, 2023, which negates the OM No5-

14025/23/2013-MS.EHSS dated 29.09.2016

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the

following judgments to bolster his aforesaid submissions:

i. Union of India & Others vs. V.A.Abraham , WPCT No. 213 of

2004;

ii. Union of India & Others vs. V.A.Abraham , SLP (C) No.

6805/2014 of 2014 judgement dated 5

th

May,2014;

iii. Lt. Governor & Others vs. Neamat Khan , WPCT No. 169 of

2013;

iv. Union of India & Others vs. S.R.Ghosal, WPCT No. 30 of 2022;

v. Union of India & Others vs. Rah Kumar Saw , WPCT No. 44 of

2023;

vi. Lt. Governor Union of India & others vs. Mohammed Haneef

and Another, WPCT No. 46 of 2024;

8

vii. Mohammed Hanif vs. Admiral (Retd) D.k Joshi & others CPAN

19 of 2025, In WPCT 46 of 2024

viii. Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 694 of

2015

ix. Consumer Education and Research Centre and others vs.

Union of India and others

1

.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT

11. This court carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on

behalf of the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, we

find the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for

treatment of the retired employee of the A&N Administration

Education Department was rejected on the ground that as per

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's OM-5-14025/23/2013-MS

EHSS dated 29.9.2016 that CS (MA) Rules 1944 are not applicable

to pensioners, who did not opted the options available according to

the said Memo.

12. At the outset, the foundational facts are not in dispute. The father of

the respondents retired from service on 31 July 2018 and,

subsequent to his retirement, suffered from a serious and life-

threatening ailment, namely left temporoparietal glioblastoma, for

which he underwent specialised treatment and surgery at Apollo

1

1995 (3) SCC 42

9

Hospital/Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai. It is also undisputed that

substantial medical expenditure amounting to ₹29,06,535/- was

incurred for such treatment and that the claim for reimbursement

was rejected by the authorities solely on the ground that the Central

Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 do not apply to

pensioners in view of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2016 and

that the retired employee had opted for FMA.

13. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the mere

fact that the retired employee had opted for FMA, or had not

registered himself under CGHS after retirement, disentitles his legal

heirs from claiming reimbursement of medical expenses actually

incurred for life-saving treatment.

14. On this issue, a catena of judgments, passed by various judicial

fora, namely, the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, from time to time, have upheld the need and the

right of the pensioners under CS (MA) Rules to reimbursement of

medical expenses.

15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

respondents have dealt with a similar issue. Most of the Hon’ble

courts held that right to health, medical aid to protect the health

and vigour of a worker while in service or post retirement is a

fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39 (3), 41, 43

48 A and all related to Articles and fundamental human rights to

10

make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with

dignity of person as such reimbursement of medical bill should not

be denied and ultimately allowed the reimbursement of medical bills

to the petitioner(s).

16. G.I Min. of Health & F.W. O.M No.S-14025/4/96-MS dated 05-06-

1998 under heading ‘Extension of CS (MA), Rules,1944, to

pensioners residing in area not covered by CGHS’ is reproduced

hereinbelow in verbatim.

“The undersigned is directed to refer to the Department of

Pension and Pensioners Welfare, O.M. No. 45/74/97-PP&PW(C), dated

15-4-1997 on the above subject and to say that it has been decided by

this Ministry that the pensioners should not be deprived of medical

facilities from the Government in their old age when they require them

most. This Ministry has, therefore, no objection to the extension of the

CS (MA) Rules to the Central Government pensioners residing in non-

CGHS areas as recommended by the Pay Commission. However, the

responsibility of administrating the CS (MA) Rules for pensioners can-

not be handled by CGHS. It should be administered by the respective

Ministries/Departments as in the case of serving employees covered

under CS (MA) Rules, 1944. The Department of Pension and Pen-

sioners Welfare would need to have the modalities worked out for the

implementation of the rules in consultation with the

Ministries/Departments prior to the measure being introduced to avoid

any hardships to the pensioners. The pensioners could be given a one-

time option at the time of their retirement for medical coverage under

CGHS or under the CS (MA) Rules, 1944. In case of a pensioner opting

for CGHS fa-cities, he/she would have to get himself/herself registered

in the near-rif CGHS city for availing of hospitalization facilities. In

such cases, the reimbursement claims would be processed by the

11

Additional Director, CGHS of the concerned city. For those opting for

medical facilities under the CS (MA) Rules, the scrutiny of the claims

would have to be done by the parent office as in the case of serving

employees and the payment would also have to be made by them. The

list of AMAs to be appointed under CS (MA) Rules would be decided

Ministry/Department-wise as provided under the rules. The benefi-

ciaries of the CS (MA) Rules, 1944 would be entitled to avail of hos-

pitalization facilities as provided under these rules”.

The Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare are re-

quested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly”.

17. If we go by the aforesaid Memo, the Ministry of Health & Family

Welfare clearly and explicitly decided that the pensioners should not

be deprived of medical facilities from the Government in their old age

when they require them most. This Ministry has, therefore, no

objection to the extension of the CS (MA) Rules to the Central

Government pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas as

recommended by the Pay Commission subject to certain conditions.

18. Memo dated 29.09.2016 specify the availability of medical facilities

to the Central Government pensioners in two categories:

a) Pensioners residing in CGHS covered area:

b) Pensioners residing in non-CGHS area:

1. They can avail Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) @ 500/- per

month.

12

2. They can also avail benefits of CGHS (OPD and IPO) by

registering themselves in the nearest CGHS city after making

the required subscription.

3. They also have the option to avail FMA, for OPD treatment and

CGHS for IPD trcatments after making the required

subscriptions as per CGHS guidelines.

19. In the said Memo, it is also given responsibility to all

departments/Ministries to inform their employees proceeding for

retirement regarding the above options for medical facilities available

to the Central Government pensioners, but no such information was

given to the retired employee. The petitioners claim that the retired

employee, K.R. Samson, the father of the respondents, had opted to

claim fixed medical allowance by submitting the form on October 1,

2020, as he was residing in area where no CGHS Medical facilities

were available. Duty cast upon the authority to inform the employee

about the facilities at the time of retirement. No such obligation is

foisted on the retired employee as such the petitioners cannot avoid

its responsibility cast upon them.

20. Needless to reiterate that, fundamental human of right to life

includes right to live the life in meaningful and purposeful manner

with dignity. In a welfare state like ours the state is under obligation

to provide free medical assistance to its employees especially when

the hospital run by the Administration, where the petitioner was

13

immediately admitted after unfortunately and unexpectedly and

under compelling circumstances, the patient had to take treatment

from a hospital at mainland. But after getting such treatment the

concerned Petitioners do not hesitate to reject the prayer for re-

imbursement on guise of Memo.

21. "may take their own decision" in the aforesaid office memorandum

does not give Administration right to take any arbitrary or whimsical

decision but it must be based on sound reasonable discretion. The

aforesaid clause of the Office Memorandum makes it specific by

giving liberty to the Administration to take their own decision in this

regard and not to sit tight over the matter in order to show an

indifferent attitude towards their own employee who had served

under the Administration for a considerable period of time.

22. The judgments relied upon by the respondents indicate that a

retired Government employee cannot be denied the medical facilities

which he was entitled to during his employment. In fact, the Apex

Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha (Supra) held that in such

cases, the authorities are only bound to ensure that the claimant

had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is

supported by records duly certified by the doctors/Hospitals

concerned, and a decision has to be taken by showing a

humanitarian approach. In the present case, it is not the stand of

the Petitioners that the claimant has not received treatment from the

14

mainland, or that he has not incurred the medical expenditure

which he has actually sought for.

23. In Shiv Kant Jha (Supra), which was decided on April 13, 2018,

Their Lordship specifically held in paragraph 13 as follows:-

“It is a settled legal position that the Government employee

during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the

benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on

his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate

decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with

the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic

qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the

patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the

ailment should be treated. Speciality hospitals are established

for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors

specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure

proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking

treatment in speciality hospital by itself would deprive a person

to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said

hospital is not included in the Government order. The right to

medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the

hospital is not included in the Government order. The real test

must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is

honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the

claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of

treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/

Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be

denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by

taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have

15

denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner

forcing him to approach this Court."

24. In the said Judgment, it was further held that the relevant

authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot

mechanically deny the medical bills, depriving an employee of his

legitimate reimbursement.

25. The same principle has been reiterated consistently in a catena of

decisions, including Union of India v. V.A. Abraham (Supra) , Lt.

Governor v. Neamat Khan (Supra) , and Union of India v. S.R.

Ghosal (Supra), and other judgments relied upon by the learned

counsel for the respondents. These decisions uniformly recognise

that pensioners form a vulnerable class and that medical

reimbursement claims, particularly those arising out of serious

illnesses and emergency treatment, must be considered with a

humane and pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic or hyper-

technical one.

26. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that

the medical treatment was genuine, necessary, and supported by

documentary evidence. There is no allegation of fabrication,

exaggeration, or lack of nexus between the treatment and the

expenditure claimed. The rejection of the claim was founded solely

on the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 29.09.2016

and the option exercised for FMA. Such reasoning, in the considered

16

view of this Court, is legally unsustainable in light of the

constitutional mandate under Article 21 and the authoritative

pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

27. The contention of the writ petitioners that opting for FMA

constitutes an absolute bar to medical reimbursement also cannot

be accepted. The petitioners’ contention that the respondents are not

entitled for reimbursement medical bills of the retire employee on

the basis of OM-5-14025/23/2013-MS EHSS dated 29.9.2016

although it was nagated by subsequent OM-

Z15025/5B/2017/DIR/CGHS/Pt dated 21st July, 2017 issued by

Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Department of Health & family welfare Directorate General of CGHS.

28. The OM dated 21

st

July, 2017 is reproduced herein below in

verbatim for the sake of conveniance:-

“ Subject- Serving employees/pensioners of Union

Territories are not entitled to CGHS facilities.

With reference to the above mentioned subject it has come to

the notice that some CGHS cards were inadvertently issued

to Pensioners of Union Territones in some cities. In this

regard it is clarified that Serving employees/ pensioners of

Union Territories are not entitied to CGHS facilities care

must be taken to ensure that CGHS Cards are not issued to

such Individuals. In such cases, where CGHS cards were

issued Inadvertently the individuals concerned may be

informed of the mistake and cancel such cards with a notice

of one month’s grace period and the balance CGHS

17

subscription for the remaining years may be returned to

such individuals”.

29. Therefore, we are fully convinced that the respondents are entitled

to reimbursement of the medical bills. It is trite law that if two

plausible views are available on the issue, then the one that is

suitable to the aggrieved party should be accepted.

30. Fixed Medical Allowance is intended to meet routine and minor

medical expenses, and therefore, cannot be construed as a waiver of

the right to reimbursement for extraordinary or specialised medical

treatment, particularly in cases involving life-threatening diseases.

To hold otherwise would amount to placing an unreasonable

restriction on the right to health of retired employees and

pensioners.

31. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and foregoing reasons, we

have reached to the conclusion that there is no infirmity or palpable

illegality in the impugned order passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal on November 11, 2025. Consequently, the

impugned order is hereby affirmed.

32. In the result, the present writ petition being WP.CT 9 of 2026 filed

by the Petitioners is hereby dimissed without order as to costs.

33. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

34. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

18

35. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to

be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal

formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

I Agree.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)