Constitutional Right To Health Cannot Be Defeated By Executive Orders: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Medical Reimbursement To Retired Revenue Officer
The High Court held that the right to health and medical care forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, read with Article 39(e), and cannot be curtailed by an executive Government Order issued to enforce fiscal discipline.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that executive instructions issued to promote fiscal discipline cannot override or curtail a citizen’s constitutional right to health and medical care guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, read with Article 39(e).
The Court was dealing with a challenge to the rejection of a medical reimbursement claim of a retired Revenue Officer, which had been returned by the State Government based on a subsequent Government Order prohibiting relaxation of rules involving additional financial burden.
Emphasizing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, A Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti examined the statutory framework under the Andhra Pradesh Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972, the effect of the Government Order relied upon by the State, and the constitutional principles governing the right to health, and observed: “The G.O.Ms.No.230 Finance (DCM-I) Department dated 15.10.2011 would not take away the petitioner’s constitutional right under Article 21 read with Article 39 (e) of the Constitution of India and the State’s Obligation under Part-IV of the Constitution of India. In other words, the government order, referred to supra, will not overturn the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
Advocate Marupilli Saradha represented the petitioner, while the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner had retired as a Revenue Officer from the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry. His wife underwent treatment for breast cancer with bone metastasis at a private hospital, incurring medical expenses amounting to ₹1,28,446/-.
After his wife passed away, the petitioner submitted medical reimbursement bills. As no action was taken, he approached the High Court earlier, pursuant to which the authorities were directed to process his claim in accordance with the law.
Subsequently, the medical bills were scrutinised by the Director of Medical Education, who approved reimbursement of ₹96,424/- after imposing a 15% cut as prescribed under the Rules for belated claims. The Director of Municipal Administration, thereafter, forwarded the proposal to the Government seeking relaxation of the delay.
However, the Government returned the proposal citing G.O.Ms No.230 Finance (DCM-I) Department, which prohibited relaxation of rules involving additional financial burden on the exchequer. This rejection led to the filing of the present writ petition.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the Andhra Pradesh Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 5 and Appendix III, which govern reimbursement of medical expenses. It noted that while belated claims beyond six months are ordinarily rejected, the Rules themselves contemplate relaxation by the Government, subject to conditions including imposition of a 15% cut.
The Court observed that in the present case, the competent authority had already scrutinised the claim and approved reimbursement in accordance with the Rules. The only impediment was the Government’s refusal to grant relaxation based on G.O.Ms No.230.
The Court held that the said Government Order operates prospectively and could not be applied to a claim that had arisen and was under consideration before its issuance. The petitioner had initially submitted his claim and pursued it diligently thereafter, including through judicial intervention.
More importantly, the Court emphasised that the right to health is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that “the Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities under Article 39 (e) of the Constitution of India”, while further holding that “the Right to health and medical care to protect the health of a citizen while in service or post-retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Article 39 (e) of the Constitution of India”.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that “no administrative order, executive action, or Government Order, howsoever issued, can override, curtail, or suspend the provisions of the Constitution of India”.
Relying on these principles, the Court held that G.O.Ms No.230 could not be invoked to deny medical reimbursement that was otherwise admissible under the Rules, particularly when the claim had already been approved after scrutiny.
The Court also took note of the prolonged hardship faced by the petitioner, a retired employee, who had been made to wait for reimbursement of ₹96,424/- for over a decade, despite having complied with the procedural requirements laid down under the Rules.
Conclusion
In view of the above, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside Memo No.25569/D2/2011-3 dated 31.01.2012 issued by the Government, returning the proposal for medical reimbursement.
The Court directed the Government to sanction relaxation for reimbursement of ₹96,424/- in favour of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three weeks from receipt of the judgment. The respondent authorities were further directed to ensure payment of the sanctioned amount expeditiously, preferably within four weeks thereafter.
Cause Title: N G Papa Rao v. Secretary to Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department & Another
Appearances
Petitioner: Marupilli Saradha, Advocate
Respondents: Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development
