Anup Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53302
1 WP-1834-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
th
ON THE 17 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1834 of 2016
ANUP KUMAR CHAUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Malti Dadariya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Ahuja - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.7.2015,
Annexure P/1, directing the respondents to give
retrospective sanction keeping aside the fact that
treatment is taken by non-recognized hospital at Nagpur
allowing his claim to the extent which is permissible
under the rule.
(ii) Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further
directing the department to make the payment of
medical reimbursement immediately within a period of
three months from the date of order of the Hon’ble
Court.
(iii) That reasonable interest may be allowed on the
genuine claim of the petitioner.
(iv) Cost of the litigation may also be allowed.
(v) Any other writ/ order / direction, which this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in
the interest of justice.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner was working as a Laboratory Technician in the office of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
10:58:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53302
2 WP-1834-2016
Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Chhindwara. The petitioner suffered a

heart attack and got admitted in the hospital at Chhindwara. However, as the
facility for open heart surgery was not available in Chhindwara, he was
referred to a higher medical institution. The petitioner got admitted in Dr.
K.G. Deshmukh Memorial Centre Hospital, Nagpur and operated on
25.04.2014. The petitioner was discharged on 03.05.2014 . Thereafter, the
petitioner applied for post-treatment sanction for reimbursement of the
medical bill vide applications dated 20.08.2014 (annexure P/4) and
07.02.2015 (Annexure P/5). It is submitted that the application of the
petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2015
passed by the Dean, Medical College, Jabalpur, on the grounds that the
operation which has been undertaken by the petitioner was not of such a
nature which can be said to be emergency treatment and the petitioner had
taken treatment in an unrecognized medical institution. Therefore, the claim
of the petitioner has been rejected. It is further submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as the " Rules of 1958), are silent with regard to grant
of post-sanction for treatment obtained from a medical institution situated
outside the State. However, the State Government has formulated a policy
vide circular dated 28.05.2013 (Annexure P/12), wherein certain guidelines
have been laid down regarding sanction of treatment of Government servants
outside the State. According to Clause 2 of the said policy, post-sanction
can be granted by the Director, Medical Education through Controlling
Authority/Administrative Department/Head of the Department. A committee
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
10:58:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53302
3 WP-1834-2016
has also been constituted to consider cases relating to post-sanction,

according to which the Divisional Commissioner is the President and Dean,
Medical College, and other officers of the Government Departments are
made members of that committee. The said committee is a Divisional Level
Committee, which is required to refer the matter to the State Level
Committee headed by the Principal Secretary, Medical Education
Department. It is submitted that in the present case, the Dean, by impugned
order dated 22.7.2015 has rejected the petitioner's application. Therefore, the
impugned order is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
Rules of 1958 do not provide for any provision for treatment in a medical
institution situated outside the State. Therefore, the State Government has
formulated a policy, according to which the petitioner was required to take
prior sanction from the competent authority. The petitioner neither obtained
pre-treatment sanction from the competent authority nor took treatment from
a medical institution recognized by the State. Therefore, in any case, the
petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred
at post-treatment stage and prayed for dismissal of the petition
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner has undertaken treatment from
the medical institution situated outside the State. It is also not disputed that
the State has formulated a policy to reimburse the payment of medical bills
post-treatment taken from an institution situated outside the State. However,
as the Rules of 1958 do not provide any provision regarding post-sanction of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
10:58:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53302
4 WP-1834-2016
treatment from a medical institution situated outside the State, the State

Government has taken a policy decision vide policy dated 28.05.2013
(Annexure P/12) according to which post-treatment sanction is to be granted
by the Committee, of which details are mentioned in the said circular. In the
said committee, the Divisional Commissioner is the President and the Dean,
Medical Education, is the Member Secretary along with other members of
the Committee who are from different departments.
6 . From a perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the
Committee, headed by the Divisional Commissioner, after examining the
matter of the petitioner, found that the treatment of the petitioner was not so
emergent that petitioner could not take any prior sanction before getting
admitted in an institution situated outside the State and the treatment was
taken in an institution which is not recognized by the State. It is found that
the State has also recognized certain specialized institutions situated outside
the State for the treatment of its employees. However, as the petitioner got
himself treated in an institution which is not recognized by the State and
finding it that the treatment was not so emergent that prior sanction could not
be taken by the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
decision taken by the authorities is in consonance of the policy. It is also
pertinent to note that when the petitioner has challenged the order dated
22.07.2015 informing the decision of the Committee by the Member
Secretary of the Committee, the petitioner has not filed any document to
substantiate that when the petitioner admitted in the Government Hospital,
Chhindwara, he has taken any reference to be admitted in a specialized
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
10:58:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53302
5 WP-1834-2016
hospital. In the absence of such reference or recommendation by a Medical

Officer of the State to the effect that petitioner needed urgent treatment in a
particular institution, it cannot be gathered that petitioner, due to urgent
medical necessity, got admitted in a particular institution without taking prior
permission from the State. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the orders passed by the Committee are in consonance of the policy issued by
the State.
7. No case is made out warranting interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
L.R.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
10:58:54