Srinagar: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Thursday directed the Rural Development Department (RDD) to deposit ₹10 lakh as part of the medical reimbursement claim of its employee who had undergone a liver transplant at a private hospital in Chennai.
The direction was passed after the Director of Finance, RDD Kashmir, declined reimbursement on the grounds that government employees are required to seek treatment at government hospitals or institutions recognised or empanelled by the government as per standard procedure.
After hearing arguments from the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad Pandith and the RDD, Judicial Member M S Latif observed that it had become expedient in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to deposit an amount of ₹10 lakh out of the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner with the Registry of the Tribunal on or before the next date of hearing.
The petitioner, who is posted as Panchayat Secretary at Block Office Khag, submitted that he was diagnosed during service with advanced liver disease, portal hypertension, and other related ailments. He challenged the communication dated 28-08-2025 issued by the RDD and sought directions to process, sanction, and release his medical reimbursement claim amounting to ₹26 lakh.
He also sought 75 percent advance reimbursement in terms of medical certificates, bills, and vouchers, without insisting on empanelment or prior approval, in a time-bound manner, along with interest at the rate of 18 percent.
The petitioner stated that his medical condition required immediate and specialised treatment. He initially approached the Gastroenterology Department at SKIMS, Soura, where doctors advised him to undergo a liver transplant and advanced treatment. As the required facility was not available in Jammu and Kashmir, he was admitted to MIOT Hospital, Chennai, after duly informing the concerned authorities.
He finally underwent liver transplantation surgery in May 2025, incurring an expenditure of approximately ₹26 lakh.
Citing a pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India, counsel for the petitioner argued that reimbursement cannot be denied solely on the ground that treatment was taken at a specialised hospital not approved by the State. The right to medical reimbursement, it was contended, flows directly from the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Tribunal observed that preservation of human life is of paramount importance and that the State has a constitutional obligation to provide timely medical treatment. It noted that the Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare State at both the federal and State levels.
The order further recorded that medical reimbursement is a valuable right offered by the employer to its employees, and any inhibitive interpretation of policy that defeats this right cannot be accepted. The Tribunal held that expecting a person suffering from a life-threatening ailment to meet enormous medical expenses under a fixed medical scheme would be unrealistic and defeatist.
The Tribunal also observed that in emergency and life-threatening situations, a patient cannot be expected to wait for permission to undergo treatment at a government or empanelled hospital, particularly when Article 21 mandates timely and effective medical care.
Prima facie, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was compelled by circumstances beyond his control to seek emergency treatment at a hospital in Chennai to save his life.
The Tribunal issued notice to the government, which was accepted by Senior Additional Advocate General Satinder Singh, who sought and was granted four weeks’ time to file a detailed reply.
The Tribunal also directed that the Commissioner Secretary, Finance Department, Jammu and Kashmir, be impleaded as a party respondent in the matter.
