Case Background
The petitioner was working as a Constable in the Bihar Home Guards. He was deputed to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, where he joined duty on 6.4.2010.
On 20.9.2010, while performing his official duty in that office, he fell from the staircase. This fall caused serious injury.
He was taken to R.P. Orthopedic Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited at Ranchi under the care of Dr. S.N. Yadav. There he underwent surgery and related treatment. According to the petitioner, he spent a total amount of Rs. 2,06,984/- on this treatment.
As his condition did not improve fully, he was later referred to the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi. He was treated there from 4.11.2010 to 6.12.2010 in the Department of Neuro Surgery. After recovery, he returned to Aurangabad and rejoined his duties.
The petitioner submitted his medical bills to the authorities for reimbursement, treating the injury as one suffered during the course of service. However, the respondents did not reimburse any amount. Left with no option, he filed this writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking a direction to reimburse all medical expenditure incurred in his treatment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard the matter as a civil writ application. The core question was whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses despite not having prior permission to take treatment outside Bihar and in a private hospital.
The petitioner’s side argued that the injury was sustained while he was on official duty, inside the office of the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. Because of the grave and urgent nature of his condition after the fall, there was no time to seek prior permission from the competent authority. He was immediately rushed to Ranchi for treatment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in similar cases this Court had already directed reimbursement of medical claims. He relied on three earlier Patna High Court decisions: Md. Ahad Raza vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2008(1) PLJR 337, Biresh Chandra Chatterji vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; 2008(1) PLJR 394, and Dr. Dhirendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; 2007(4) PLJR 281.
On the other hand, the State opposed the claim. The respondents accepted that the petitioner was on duty, that he suffered a fall in the office staircase, and that he underwent treatment in Ranchi. They also stated that as per memo no. 493 dated 21.3.2003 issued by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioner was to be treated as a Government employee for the purpose of medical treatment.
However, the State contended that as per Clause 3(iv) of resolution no. 1070(14) dated 10.5.2006 of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, prior permission was required before an employee took treatment outside the State. Since the petitioner had gone to Ranchi without obtaining such permission, his claim should be rejected.
The State also argued that under the same resolution, he should have taken treatment in a Government Medical College Hospital. For an injury at Aurangabad, the nearest Government Medical College Hospitals were at Gaya and Patna, which are both within Bihar and closer than Ranchi. Hence, according to the respondents, his decision to go to a private hospital and then to RIMS, Ranchi, without permission, violated the rules and disentitled him to reimbursement.
After hearing both sides and examining the documents on record, the Court set out the undisputed facts. It noted that the petitioner, a Home Guard Constable, fell on 20.9.2010 in the office staircase while on duty. He was taken to R.P. Orthopedic Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Ranchi, and later to RIMS, Ranchi. He produced original prescriptions, test reports including MRI of his spine with contrast, and the discharge sheet from the Department of Neuro Surgery at RIMS, Ranchi.
The Court pointed out that there was no dispute on two key aspects. First, the petitioner had indeed not taken prior permission before going for treatment at Ranchi. Secondly, there was also no dispute and no suspicion raised by the State regarding the genuineness of the accident, the injuries, or the treatment undertaken at Ranchi.
The Court then examined whether the lack of prior permission, by itself, could be used to deny medical reimbursement when the injury occurred during the course of duty and the treatment was evidently bona fide and necessary.
In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Court looked into the nature of the injury and the circumstances immediately after the fall. It observed that the petitioner was rushed and admitted to the Ranchi hospital on the very same day, 20.9.2010. In the Court’s opinion, in such a situation he did not have any time to obtain prior permission.
The Court also accepted that although the petitioner could have taken treatment at hospitals in Bihar, the fact that his family members or friends took him to Ranchi in an emergency could not be held against him. The Court clearly stated that merely because he underwent treatment at Ranchi, he could not be deprived of his legitimate claim for reimbursement of medical expenditure.
Next, the Court considered the earlier judgments cited by the petitioner’s counsel. It held that the petitioner’s case was fully covered by the decisions in Md. Ahad Raza, Biresh Chandra Chatterji and Dr. Dhirendra Kumar. In those cases, too, the Court had ordered reimbursement despite technical objections.
The Court further noted that in Dr. Dhirendra Kumar and the other cases, reference had been made to Rule 26 of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules. This rule empowers the Government to grant concessions relating to medical attendance or treatment even in situations not strictly authorised by the formal rules.
Taking all these aspects together, the Court concluded that a strict and technical reading of the rules could not be used to deny reimbursement in the petitioner’s situation. The injury was on duty, the treatment was genuine, and the urgency of the medical condition explained the absence of prior permission.
Therefore, in paragraph 14, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought in the writ application. In paragraph 15, it directed the respondents to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner after his fall on 20.9.2010 while performing his duties in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
To make the order workable, the Court further directed in paragraph 16 that the petitioner must file a representation along with a copy of the writ application, supplementary affidavit, a copy of the judgment, and details of the total expenditure. On receipt of this, the respondents are to reimburse the whole amount within three months.
With these directions, the writ application was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for government employees and Home Guard personnel who suffer injuries while on duty and are forced to take immediate medical treatment without formal permission.
The Patna High Court has clarified that in genuine emergencies, lack of prior permission to take treatment outside the State or in a non-government hospital cannot automatically defeat a claim for medical reimbursement.
The judgment recognises real-life situations where an injured person is rushed by relatives or colleagues to the nearest or perceived best hospital. It stresses that if the injury on duty is not disputed, and medical records clearly support the treatment, the authorities should not rely only on technical rules to deny reimbursement.
This ruling will help similarly placed employees in Bihar who have valid medical bills for emergency treatment but are facing refusal on the narrow ground that they did not first seek formal clearance.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a Home Guard Constable injured on duty be denied reimbursement of medical expenses solely because he took treatment outside Bihar and in a private and government hospital at Ranchi without prior permission under the Health Department resolution dated 10.5.2006?
Answer: No. The Court held that in the emergency circumstances of the case, where the injury on duty and treatment were undisputed and properly documented, absence of prior permission could not be a ground to deny reimbursement. The petitioner is entitled to full reimbursement. - Issue: Do earlier Patna High Court decisions and Rule 26 of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules support granting medical reimbursement even when strict procedural rules are not followed?
Answer: Yes. Relying on Md. Ahad Raza, Biresh Chandra Chatterji, and Dr. Dhirendra Kumar, and noting Rule 26, the Court held that the Government and the Court can allow reimbursement as a concession in deserving cases not strictly covered by the rules.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Md. Ahad Raza vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2008(1) PLJR 337
- Biresh Chandra Chatterji vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; 2008(1) PLJR 394
- Dr. Dhirendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; 2007(4) PLJR 281
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12496 of 2012
Case Title: Surendra Rajak vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Date of Judgment: 08.12.2025
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 469
Advocates: For the petitioner: Mr. Kamlendra Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Nadim Seraj, G.P.-5; Ms. Shalini, A.C. to G.P.-5; Mr. Neeraj Nandan, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition seeking direction for reimbursement of medical expenditure for injury suffered on duty.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
