Medical Reimbursement Guaranteed Under Right To Life: Gujarat High Court Provides Relief To Retd. Teacher Of Grant-In-Aid Primary School
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State authorities to reimburse the medical expenses for the pacemaker implantation undergone by a retired primary school teacher ('Petitioner'), observing that medical reimbursement is a right guaranteed as a right to life.The Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav held that the Petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement under Gujarat Civil Service...
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State authorities to reimburse the medical expenses for the pacemaker implantation undergone by a retired primary school teacher ('Petitioner'), observing that medical reimbursement is a right guaranteed as a right to life.
The Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav held that the Petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement under Gujarat Civil Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015.
"The petitioner, irrespective of the fact of having served as a primary teacher in a grant-in-aid school cannot now be denied medical reimbursement on the ground that there is no policy for the teacher of the primary schools working in the grant-in-aid institutions," the Bench said.
The instant petition was filed because the Respondents had refused to reimburse the medical expenses of the Petitioner worth Rs.4,17,385. The Petitioner had undergone an implantation of a pacemaker at CIMS Hospital. However, the District Primary Education Officer had dismissed reimbursement on the ground that there was no policy of reimbursement in case of teachers working in Grant-in-Aid Primary Schools.
The Petitioner argued that the Respondents refusing medical reimbursement was illegal as the Petitioner was a retired employee drawing pension payable by the State. Therefore, she was a retired government employee under the Gujarat Civil Services (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015. Further, per the Division Bench of this Court, the State could not discriminate between primary and secondary teachers getting pension.
The High Court opined that irrespective of the Petitioner's stature as a primary teacher in a grant-in-aid school, aid could not be denied on this ground. The High Court relied extensively on a Division Bench order in LPA No. 32/1998 where it was held,
"Working of teachers whether in Primary Schools or in Colleges/Higher Secondary Schools/Secondary Schools has no nexus with the requirement and object for payment of medical allowance. The need of medical aid is common to all and under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India neither equals can be treated in an unequal manner, nor unequals can be treated in an equal manner, nor the State can act in an arbitrary or unreasonable or irrational manner subject to the permissible reasonable classification. We do not find any basis for any reasonable classification to classify the teachers of Primary Schools differently vis-à-vis the teachers of similarly situated Government recognised and Government aided Colleges/Higher Secondary Schools/Secondary Schools."
Additionally, the High Court pointed out that the State had provided reimbursement to the Petitioner when she had undergone the same process at a different hospital in 2007. The State had not denied this fact and therefore, it could not argue that primary teachers were not covered by the medical reimbursement policy.
Lastly, reference was made to State Of Punjab vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 to confirm that medical reimbursement is a right guaranteed as a right to life. The Apex Court had explained in the precedent that maintaining the health of the citizens should be a top priority for a Welfare State since it will benefit the State in achieving its social political and economic goals.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Case No.: C/SCA/17320/2021
Case Title: USHABEN DAYASHANKAR SHUKLA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 308