Gujarat High Court
Manharba Udaysinh Limbad(Deceased) vs Secretary Education Department on 27 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3161 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
MANHARBA UDAYSINH LIMBAD(DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VISHRUT R JANI(6696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MS NIDHI VYAS, AGP for State Respondents
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 27/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the State, submits the affidavit-in-reply, the reply is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr.Vishrut Jani, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms.Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the State respondents.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP, waives service of Rule for the State respondents.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined 3.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.
4. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction directing the respondents to grant reimbursement of all the medical treatment bills of the petitioner as per ANNEXURE-B Collectively with interest @ 12% per annum.
[C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue direction directing the respondents to grant reimbursement of all the medical treatment bills of the petitioner as per ANNEXURE-B Collectively forthwith."
5. The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher at a Primary Vinaykumar School, Surendranagar, since 11/02/1981 till her superannuation, i.e., 31/05/2018. The petitioner was detected with cancer in the year 2007 and she undergone treatment at CIMS Cancer Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad from 12/06/2018 to 15/03/2019. The petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.12,05,230/-. The petitioner, being a teacher serving in the said school which was a grant-in-aid school, submitted her Mediclaim with the respondent. The respondent, vide its communication dated 22/10/2020 read with 02/11/2020, rejected the Mediclaim of the petitioner only on the ground that she cannot be treated as an employee/pensioner of the State as per the Gujarat State Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2015").
Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined 5.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of her Mediclaim, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
6. Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the issue germane to the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ushaben Dayashankar Shukla vs. State of Gujarat & others, dated 02/08/2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.17320 of 2021, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its decision dated 12/07/2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.543 of 2023. It is submitted that the objections raised by the respondent while denying the benefit of reimbursement of her Mediclaim are not only erroneous but unsustainable in law.
6.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher in a grant-in-aid school, whereby she is required to be considered as an employee/pensioner of the respondent State, thereby she would be covered under the Rules, 2015.
7. Per contra, Ms. Vyas, learned AGP, would submit that as per the decision of the respondent, as the petitioner was serving in a grant-in-aid school, she is not eligible to get any medical reimbursement as per the Rules, 2015. It is submitted that as per Rule 1.2.2 of the Rules, 2015, it clearly enumerates that the said rules are applicable to those persons who are government employees. It is further submitted that as Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined per the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2015 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State, already clarified that only those employees who are government employees are eligible for the medical reimbursement.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents, it would emerge that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher in a government-aided school and came to be superannuated on 31/05/2018. Since the petitioner was detected with cancer, she underwent treatment post- retirement and incurred medical expenses of Rs.12,05,230/- as aforesaid. The only ground of rejection of the petitioner's Mediclaim by the respondent authority is that the petitioner cannot be treated as a government employee/pensioner in view of Rule 1.2.2 of the Rules, 2015. The petitioner retired from a government-aided school, no benefit of medical reimbursement is applicable in her case. It is also stated in the communication dated 02/11/2020 that since the petitioner was treated in a private hospital, her claim is not entertained.
9. As rightly stated by Mr.Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner that the issue germane to this matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which is confirmed by the Division Bench. It would be appropriate to refer to a few passages of the said decision in the case of Ushaben Dayashankar Shukla (supra), which read thus:
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined "5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, what needs to be considered is that the Gujarat Civil Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015 are applicable to government servants and retired pensioners. The petitioner, irrespective of the fact of having served as a primary teacher in a grant-in-aid school, cannot now be denied medical reimbursement on the ground that there is no policy for the teachers of the primary schools working in the grant-in-aid institutions.
5.1 The Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 32 of 1998 was considering the discrimination meted out to teachers in the primary section serving in grant-in-aid institutions as compared to secondary teachers who were getting medical allowances. The primary teachers were denied the benefit on the ground that there is no policy. The Division Bench in paras 5 and 6 of the decision held as under:
"5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned AGP. It is not in dispute that right from the beginning no option was given to the teachers working in the private primary recognised Government aided schools to choose between the payment of medical allowance or reimbursement. Thus right from the beginning, teachers of the primary schools as above were neither getting benefits of reimbursement nor they were getting medical allowance. To our utter surprise, we find that despite this, while issuing the Government Resolution, no care was taken to issue any direction with regard to the payment of medical allowance to teachers of primary schools while the same was decided to be paid to the teachers working in the private colleges, higher secondary schools and secondary schools. The factual position that the medical allowance is being paid to the teachers in such private- government recognised and government aided institutions i.e. colleges, higher secondary schools and secondary schools is not disputed. What has been argued before us is that with regard to the teachers of government recognised and government aided private primary schools, no Government Resolution had been taken by the Government. It is, therefore, transparently clear in the facts of this case that the teachers of the private primary schools have been subjected to hostile discrimination. We find it to be a case of class within a class. The teachers working in the private recognized government aided institutions--whether they are working in colleges, higher secondary schools, secondary schools or primary schools--form the same class for the purpose of medical allowance. The need or requirement of medical aid cannot vary merely because the teachers are working in colleges, higher secondary schools, secondary schools and primary schools. In case the same had not been decided for the teachers of primary schools while the same was decided in favour of the teachers in the private government recognised and government aided colleges, higher Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined secondary schools and secondary schools, it was clearly discriminatory and for the purpose of assailing this order and for the purpose of defending the Government's case, no refuge can be sustained on the basis of the provisions of Rule 106(4)(v) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949.
6. So far as the Supreme Court decision in the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana (Supra) is concerned, we find that that was a case in which the private teachers as a whole formed one class and they were claiming parity with the Government employees. Such is not the case before us. Before us, the grievance of discrimination is between the teachers working in private primary schools on one hand and teachers in private colleges, higher secondary schools and secondary schools inter se, and both belong to the same class of teachers working in private- government recognised and government aided institutions. Learned AGP has submitted that the learned single Judge could at the most issue direction for framing a proper scheme in this regard, but could not have issued directions as have been issued by him. Very recently in the matters of pension, we have issued directions in an identical matter being LPA No. 788/98 decided on 31.7.2001 to evolve a scheme for payment of pension to the teachers of primary schools almost on the same reasoning because there also the pension was denied to the teachers of government recognised and government aided primary schools while the same was being paid to the teachers of government recognised and government aided colleges, higher secondary schools and secondary schools. The question of evolving a scheme arises when the dates of the commencement etc. with regard to payment of any benefit is required to be determined and there are no definite data for the purpose of giving the benefit as was the case in matters of pension. So far as the present case is concerned, the medical allowance had already been paid and it was so paid for number of years and was only stopped in the year 1991. Therefore, it is only a question of resuming the benefit which had already been paid, maybe without Government Resolution. Therefore, we do not find that any direction is required to be issued for the purpose of framing a scheme. The medical allowance has to be made effective in case of teachers of government recognised and government aided private primary schools from the same date as was made in the case of teachers of government recognised and government aided private colleges, higher secondary and secondary schools, and similar Government Resolution is required to be issued effective from the same date. Moreover, it is a case in which the benefit which was already given for certain number of years but discontinued later in 1991 is simply required to be restored and resumed. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order as has been passed by the learned single Judge. On the contrary, the order seeks to render substantial justice and avoids uneven treatment which was given by creating a class within a class, which is not permissible either under Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Working of teachers, whether in primary schools or in colleges/higher secondary Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined schools/secondary schools, has no nexus with the requirement and object for payment of medical allowance. The need of medical aid is common to all and under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, neither equals can be treated in an unequal manner, nor unequals can be treated in an equal manner, nor the State can act in an arbitrary or unreasonable or irrational manner subject to the permissible reasonable classification. We do not find any basis for any reasonable classification to classify the teachers of primary schools differently vis-a-vis the teachers of similarly situated government recognised and government aided colleges/higher secondary schools/secondary schools. There is no merit in these appeals. All these three appeals are hereby dismissed. Since the main appeals have been dismissed, there is no question of stay in the civil applications. All the three civil applications stand rejected accordingly."
6. The second aspect that needs to be considered is that the stand of the State that there is no policy for grant-in- aid primary teachers appears to be flawed in absence of denial by the State that when the petitioner in the year 2007 underwent the same procedure at SAL Hospital, the same was reimbursed. If that be so, in absence of any denial to this fact, that ground of the policy being silent on primary teachers not being covered by the policy is illegal.
7. Moreover, medical reimbursement is a right guaranteed as a right to life. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 117, has held as under:
"26. When we speak about a right, it correlates to a duty upon another: individual, employer, government or authority. In other words, the right of one is an obligation of another. Hence the right of a citizen to live under Article 21 casts obligation on the State. This obligation is further reinforced under Article 47; it is for the State to secure health to its citizens as its primary duty. No doubt government is rendering this obligation by opening government hospitals and health centers, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its people, as far as possible, to reduce the queue of waiting lists, and it has to provide all facilities for which an employee looks for at another hospital. Its upkeep, maintenance and cleanliness has to be beyond aspersion. To employ best of talents and tone up its administration to give effective contribution. Also bring in awareness in welfare of hospital staff for their dedicated service, give them periodical, medico-ethical and service-oriented training, not only at the entry point but also during the whole tenure of their service. Since it is one of the most sacrosanct and valuable rights of a Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined citizen and equally sacrosanct sacred obligation of the State, every citizen of this welfare State looks towards the State for it to perform its obligation with top priority including by way of allocation of sufficient funds. This in turn will not only secure the right of its citizens to the best of their satisfaction but in turn will benefit the State in achieving its social, political and economical goal. For every return there has to be investment. Investment needs resources and finances. So even to protect this sacrosanct right, finances are an inherent requirement. Harnessing such resources needs top priority."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Likewise, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its aforesaid decision dated 12/07/2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.543 of 2023 also observed thus:
"5. It would be trite that the teachers working in the private recognised Government aided institution, whether they work in the colleges or higher secondary school or secondary school, they could be said to be said to be constituting a homogeneous class for the purpose of giving benefit of medical allowance on the ground that they are serving in the school or not in the college. Denying them the benefit of medical benefit could be a direct breach of equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The need for medical aid cannot vary only because a teacher works in a school or college or any grant-in-aid school or a private school, as the case may be.
6. Therefore, for the above reason, in law, the stand and decision of the authorities herein to deny the benefit to the petitioner of medical reimbursement cannot sustain. The discrimination to the petitioner stood perpetuated when admitted in the year 2007, for the same treatment, the petitioner was reimbursed with the expenses when she underwent the samr procedure of pacemaker implantation at SAL Hospital. The petitioner even otherwise claimed the medical expenses at the rates of recognised hospital."
(emphasis supplied)
11. In light of the aforesaid facts and applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that the stance of the respondent-State is Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the Mediclaim of the petitioner could not have been denied by the respondent by not treating her as an employee/pensioner of the State. According to my considered view, the benefits of the Rules, 2015 requires to be extended to the petitioner.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of her medical expenses incurred for her cancer treatment.
13. At this stage, Mr.Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner would inform this Court that due to rejection of petitioner's Mediclaim, the respondent has returned back the original bills and other medical treatment papers to the petitioner.
14. As this Court has held hereinabove that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of her medical expenses, the petitioner shall submit the copies of the original bills to the respondents within 15 days from today. It can be seen that while rejecting the Mediclaim, the respondent has not doubted the genuineness of the medical bills submitted by the petitioner. It appears that one bill out of ten was missing by the petitioner and its photocopy was submitted, then it is open for the petitioner to get either duplicate bill or certificate of such bill from the hospital concerned and same shall be submitted to the respondent.
14.1 Once the respondent will receive the copy of original bills as aforesaid and treatment papers of the petitioner (if not Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3161/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined available with the department), the respondent is hereby directed to process the Mediclaim of the petitioner as early as possible and make the payment of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner as per the bills not later than 30.06.2026 as significant delay has already occurred on the part of the respondent.
14.2 In a case of non-compliance of the said direction, the petitioner shall be entitled to receive 6% per annum interest on the amount towards her Mediclaim from the respondent from 01.07.2026 till its realization.
15. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusions, the present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 01:52:35 IST 2026