Right to Health Cannot Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Fiscal Discipline: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection of Medical Reimbursement to Retired Officer

“Executive Instructions Cannot Override Statutory Rules or Fundamental Rights under Article 21” – In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy over executive policy, the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down a government memo denying medical reimbursement to a retired Revenue Officer, calling the rejection arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti ruled that “no executive instruction or Government Order can nullify statutory rights or constitutional guarantees, especially when it relates to the fundamental right to health”, and directed the State to sanction and release ₹96,424 towards the petitioner’s long-pending medical reimbursement claim within seven weeks.

“Memo Based on Fiscal Policy Cannot Override Constitutionally Guaranteed Right to Health” – Court Upholds Fundamental Rights Over Financial Directives

The case arose out of the petitioner N.G. Papa Rao’s claim for reimbursement of cancer treatment expenses incurred for his wife between 24.03.2007 and 28.06.2007 at a private hospital in Secunderabad. Though the claim was submitted belatedly in 2009, and again after a High Court direction in 2011, the Director of Medical Education (DME), after scrutiny, approved an amount of ₹96,424 with the statutorily mandated 15% deduction under the A.P. Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972.

However, the Finance Department rejected the claim via Memo No. 25569/D2/2011-3 dated 31.01.2012, invoking G.O.Ms.No.230 dated 15.10.2011, which barred relaxation of financial rules where additional burden would fall on the exchequer.

The High Court rejected this justification outright, holding that executive orders such as G.O.Ms.No.230 cannot apply retrospectively to nullify claims already approved under statutory rules and observed:

“The G.O. dated 15.10.2011 operates only prospectively, whereas the petitioner made his claim in 2009 and again in 2011 after a judicial directive.”

“Right to Health is Integral to Right to Life Under Article 21” – Medical Claims Cannot Be Rejected on Grounds of Fiscal Constraints

The Court invoked well-established constitutional jurisprudence to hold that the right to health is an inalienable part of Article 21, and such a right extends to both serving and retired government employees. It strongly reminded the State that budgetary limitations cannot justify denial of health rights, stating:

“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.”

Relying on Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India [(1995) 3 SCC 42], Mohinder Singh Chawla v. State of Punjab [(1997) 2 SCC 83], and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal [(1996) 4 SCC 36], the Court reiterated:

“It is no doubt true that financial resources are needed... but it cannot be ignored that it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide adequate medical services to the people.”

The judgment emphasized that no financial policy can trump the State’s constitutional duties, especially where the life and dignity of retired public servants are involved.

“Executive Instructions Cannot Supplant Existing Statutory Framework” – Court Cites Recent Supreme Court Ruling in Partha Das

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844, to highlight the limited scope of executive powers under Article 166 of the Constitution. It quoted:

“Executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder… such executive instructions cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field.”

Justice Satti found that the A.P. Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 3 of Appendix III and its notes, clearly provide for relaxation in delayed claims with a 15% deduction. Since this mechanism was already invoked by the Director of Medical Education, the government had no lawful authority to reject the claim on fiscal policy grounds.

“Petitioner Made to Wait Over a Decade for a Lawful Entitlement” – High Court Orders Sanction Within 3 Weeks and Payment in 4 More

In scathing remarks on the delay caused to the retired officer, the Court observed:

“Unfortunately, the petitioner, a retired employee, has been made to wait for a claim of ₹96,424/- for more than a decade.”

Calling the memo issued by Respondent No.1 “unsustainable”, the Court quashed it and directed:

“Respondent No.1 shall sanction relaxation regarding the proposal towards medical reimbursement for sanction of ₹96,424/- to the petitioner... within three weeks... Respondent authorities shall ensure payment... preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.”

“This Judgment Is a Resounding Reminder That Rule of Law Prevails Over Executive Convenience”

This ruling marks a critical precedent in the context of welfare rights of retired public servants, belated medical claims, and the interplay between fiscal policy and constitutional guarantees.

Justice Satti’s clear pronouncements reassert that “the Constitution is the supreme law of the land”, and any attempt to override it by administrative fiat will be struck down as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the fundamental rights of citizens.

Date of Decision: 07.11.2025