Fundamental right to medical reimbursement remains enforceable regardless of criminal conviction or withholding of pension.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent from the Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh, was convicted by a Special Judge, CBI, on 21.05.2018 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC

Following his conviction, the respondents invoked Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules to withhold his entire pension effective from the date of conviction

Although the applicant’s sentence was suspended by the Punjab and Haryana High Court pending appeal, the respondents rejected his medical reimbursement claim of Rs. 2,07,409 for a knee replacement surgery on 28.05.2019, citing his conviction and the stoppage of his pension

Notably, the Tribunal had previously set aside the order withholding the applicant's pension in O.A No. 649/2019, directing a fresh decision in accordance with law

1. Whether the claim for medical reimbursement by a retiree is sustainable despite their conviction by a court of law

2. Whether the rejection of a medical claim based on the withholding of pension and criminal conviction violates fundamental rights under the Constitution of India

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and health as a fundamental right available to all persons, including convicts

Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, Part-I, and Rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment Appeal) Rules, 1970, regarding the withholding of pension

Principle that a criminal appeal is a continuation of trial proceedings

Instructions dated 24.12.1997 regarding medical facilities for retired U.T. government servants

The Tribunal reasoned that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, and this mandate extends to all individuals, regardless of their status as serving employees, retirees, or convicts

The Bench observed that since the applicant’s appeal against conviction was still sub judice and his sentence had been suspended, the respondents' reliance on the conviction to deny medical benefits was legally flawed

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the very basis of the rejection—the withholding of pension—had already been declared illegal in the applicant's previous litigation (O.A No. 649/2019)

The Tribunal emphasized that human dignity and the right to health must be maintained even for those in judicial custody or released on bail, rendering the respondents' summary rejection of the claim unconstitutional

The impugned order dated 28.05.2019 was quashed and set aside

The respondents were directed to decide the applicant's medical reimbursement claim in accordance with the applicable rules within four weeks from the receipt of the order

No costs were awarded