Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lko. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director and 3 Others

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Piyush Kishor, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Alok Saran, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3.

¶12

2. No notice be issued to respondent no. 4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed and the fact that the order impugned dated 29.11.2024 has been passed by the respondent no. 3.

¶13

3. There is consensus at the Bar that the facts of the case have already been indicated in order of this Court dated 12.2.2025, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:

¶14

"Heard.

¶15

Under challenge is the order dated 29.11.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the claim for medical reimbursement of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the treatment received by him from Max Super Speciality Hospital, Ease Block, Press Enclave, New Delhi is not admissible as the said hospital is registered as a nursing home.

¶16

In this regard, reliance has been placed on an office memorandum dated 25.01.14 as issued by the Power Corporation , a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition which indicates that the medical reimbursement would not be admissible for nursing homes and clinics.

¶17

WRIA No. 1761 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two others office orders have been issued by the Power Corporation namely the order dated 08.07.2016, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition as well as an order dated 29.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 6 which has included the Max Super Speciality Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad at serial no. 36 and Max Super Speciality Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (once again) at serial no. 28 respectively of the said orders.

¶20

Contention is that once the other units of the same hospital have been included for the purpose of grant of medical reimbursement consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have rejected the claim of the petitioner despite he having received the medical treatment at the aforesaid hospital on the aforesaid ground.

¶21

Responding to Sri Joytiandra Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Sri Alok Saran, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 states that as per registration certificate of the Max Super Speciality Hospital at which the petitioner has received the treatment is registered as a nursing home and thus the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted considering the office circular dated 25.01.2014 as issued by the Power Corporation.

¶22

However, Sri Pathak prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions as to how the Max Super Speciality Hospital as per the details given above as included in the circulars dated 08.07.2016 & 29.01.2024 are registered.

¶23

List thereafter as fresh.

¶24

It would also be open for the respondents to file a short counter affidavit by the next date. "

¶25

4. Today Shri Alok Saran, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 on the basis of the averments contained in the short counter affidavit argues that hospital namely Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, in which the petitioner has received treatment and has submitted bill for medical reimbursement is registered as a nursing home as per the registration certificate, a copy of which is annexure SCA-2 to the short counter affidavit. Placing reliance on the policy as applicable for the purpose of medical reimbursement in terms of office order dated

¶26

WRIA No. 1761 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

25.1.2014 as applicable on the respondents any amount spent in a nursing home is not reimbursable.

¶29

5. The argument of Shri Alok Saran is that as the medical treatment has been received by the petitioner in a hospital which is registered as a nursing home, consequently keeping in view policy as applicable in the respondent corporation the amount cannot be reimbursed.

¶30

6. However, no dispute is raised pertaining to the amount which has been spent by the petitioner for his treatment.

¶31

7. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.3.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 1645 (SB) of 2015 in re: Ram Swaroop Jaggi vs Union of India and others , wherein too the medical expenses as incurred by an employee had been refused to be reimbursed by the Union of India on the ground that the expenses had been incurred in a hospital which is not a recognized authorized hospital. In the said case also the expenses incurred towards medical treatment had not been disputed.

¶32

8. Considering these aspects of the matter, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

¶33

" 8. To sum up, it can be said that reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a Government servant partakes the nature of a Constitutional as well as legal right, which has lifted up to the level of fundamental right under Article 21, but with respect to the amount/quantum thereof, employer or the State can make provisions to regulate the same. In other words, an employee cannot have an absolute right to claim reimbursement of any amount, may be extravagant or which normally one may not incur if undergo the same medical treatment in a medical establishment run by State with due expertise and desired facilities. In the matter of rates of quantum of medical reimbursement, a regulatory provision can be made by State Government and unless such provisions are shown to be prima facie irrational, they have to be honoured and implemented. Therefore, a Government servant cannot be denied reimbursement of expenses incurred on medical treatment outright in its entirety but what amount shall be reimbursed, that can be controlled by making provisions governing his conditions of service, which will

¶34

WRIA No. 1761 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

obviously have to be rational, reasonable i.e. not arbitrary. If any provision is made, which deny reimbursement in its entirety, though actual medical treatment undergone by Government servant or his family member is not found to be ingenuine or bogus, such an action of employer would be illegal. However, the employer can say that the employee may avail medical facilities in a medical establishment of any status whatsoever but expenses, which shall be reimbursed to him, would not exceed particular level or rate, normally, which are at par with similar kind of medical established or maintained by State itself and such provisions if made, have to be applied unless something is shown therein to be ex facie irrational or arbitrary.

¶37

9. Once the actual medical treatment undertaken by employee is not in dispute and the provision of medical reimbursement are there in condition of service, the same cannot be rejected outrightly. In our view the employer may not reimburse the entire expenses as claimed by employee to have incurred in private hospital but corresponding expenses at the rates in hospitals recognised by employer must have been paid, when the actual treatment undergone is not in dispute. We, therefore, allow this writ petition partly and modify judgment of Tribunal and direct respondents to examine medical claim of petitioner and compute the amount of reimbursement as per the rates prevailing at the relevant time in the recognized hospital of railway and pay such amount to the petitioner within three months."

¶38

9. From perusal of judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Swaroop Jaggi (supra) it emerges that the Division Bench has held that the employer can say that the employee may avail medical facilities in a medical establishment of any status whatsoever but expenses which shall be reimbursed to him would not exceed a particular level or rate normally which are at par with similar kind of medical hospital established or maintained by the State itself.

¶39

10. Further once the actual medical treatment undertaken by the employee is not in dispute and the provisions of medical reimbursement are there in the condition of service the same cannot be rejected outrightly.

¶40

11. In this view of the matter the Division Bench held that the employer may not reimburse the entire expenses incurred by an employee in a

¶41

WRIA No. 1761 of 2025

¶42

5

¶43

private hospital but corresponding expenses at the rate in hospitals recognized by employer should be paid when the actual treatment undergone is not in dispute.

¶44

12. In the instant case also there is no dispute to the actual medical treatment undergone by the petitioner but the only ground of rejection is that the said treatment is not taken in a hospital rather has been taken in a nursing home.

¶45

13. Accordingly, keeping in view aforesaid discussion as well as the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Swaroop Jaggi (supra) the order impugned dated 29.11.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside.

¶46

14. The respondents are directed to examine the claim of the petitioner and compute the amount of reimbursement as per the rates prevailing at the relevant time in the recognized hospital and pay such amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶47

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶48

September 2, 2025

¶49

J. K. Dinkar

¶50

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pradeep Kumar Shukla v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lko. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Shukla v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lko. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandrika Tyagi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Uma Shankar Trivedi and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Secondary. Education Govt. Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Edu. (Basic ) Lko. and 4 Others

Ashish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko andORS.

Dhani Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Co. Operative Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others