Invoking the ancient Sanskrit prayer “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah” (may all be happy; may all be free from illness), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that medical reimbursement policies must be interpreted in a practical manner to advance the cause of human welfare. The bench also made it clear that the policies could not be reduced to exercises in bureaucratic technicality.
“The most equitable way forward is to breathe practical life into statutory policies by viewing them through the timeless prism of our ancient foundational values. Medical reimbursement policies ought to be interpreted in a manner that advances the cause of human welfare rather than defeats it through technicalities, Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted.
The bench added people’s welfare was inseparable from their health and dignity. Delivering a significant ruling on the larger purpose and interpretation of the reimbursement policies, Justice Moudgil added the constitutional promise of a welfare state drew its strength from the “enduring civilisational ethos of this
country encapsulated in the ancient Sanskrit principle. “The principle underlying this timeless invocation is that the wellbeing of society is inseparable from the health and dignity of its people, and it embodies a foundational principle of governance.”
Justice Moudgil the object of such policies was not simply to reimburse expenditure, but to assure the employee that illness would not reduce him to financial ruin, helplessness or indignity. “The state must ensure that policies serve the cause of justice rather than obstruct it, as beneficial schemes must advance
their remedial purpose. Medical reimbursement, being an instrument of social welfare, should therefore receive a humane and purposive construction, consistent with the constitutional vision of a just and caring society,” the court held.
The assertions came as Justice Moudgil disposed of a bunch of petitions raising common questions relating to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by government employees and pensioners, particularly in cases where treatment was obtained from non-empanelled private hospitals, reimbursement was restricted to PGI rates despite policy provisions contemplating a higher amount, and concerns were raised over outdated eligibility conditions and reimbursement packages.
At the outset, Justice Moudgil asserted that the right to health and medical care was firmly recognised as an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in state of Punjab versus Mohinder Singh Chawla, the court observed that the state was constitutionally obligated to bear the medical expenses of its employees, the right to health being integral to life itself.
The bench further observed that “public health and hospitals” fell within the State List under the Constitution and, therefore, the state had the paramount obligation to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its citizens, particularly those who have spent the prime years of their lives serving the state machinery.
Examining the existing reimbursement framework, the court noted that the policy appeared to proceed on the assumption that employees and pensioners would ordinarily avail treatment from premier government institutions such as Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI) and other state-run hospitals.
Acknowledging that such institutions were centres of excellence providing world-class healthcare, the court said constitutional adjudication cannot proceed divorced from lived realities. “Accessibility to these institutions, both physical and practical, remains a serious impediment for a vast section of employees, particularly in moments of medical emergency,” the court observed.
Justice Moudgil asserted such circumstances often compelled patients and their attendants to seek immediate treatment at the nearest available medical facility, irrespective of its empanelment status. “In such circumstances, to reject reimbursement solely on the ground of non-empanelment would amount to placing policy procedure above human survival,” the bench observed.
During the hearing, the state informed the court that a committee headed by the Additional Director Health Services had been constituted to examine the petitioners’ claims. Disposing of the petitions, the court directed the committee to examine each case individually and take a conscious and well-reasoned decision within four weeks. It further ordered that any amount found payable would carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date it became due till its actual payment.
The judgment reinforces the principle that health cannot be subordinated to paperwork. It signals that medical reimbursement claims should not be rejected mechanically on technical grounds, particularly where emergency treatment was obtained from a non-empanelled hospital due to compelling circumstances. The high court has emphasised that the state’s obligation towards employees and pensioners is not merely financial but flows from the constitutional right to health. More broadly, the ruling underlines that welfare schemes must be interpreted in a humane and purposive manner to assist beneficiaries and advance their remedial purpose, rather than being defeated by procedural hurdles.