Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.No.597 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, has filed the original application, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that the applicant is eligible and entitled to get reimbursement of his medical claims, as he underwent medical treatment in a hospital not approved by the Government because of emergency; to set aside Annexure A6 communication No.L1/419/2019-GED dated 27.08.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, Secretary to Government, General Education Department, rejecting the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses; and to direct the respondents to sanction and disburse the claim of the made by the applicant for medical reimbursement, by reconsidering his application. Along with the original application, the applicant has placed on record Annexures A1 to A7.

2. In O.A.No.597 of 2021, the 1st respondent State filed Ext.P3 reply statement dated 11.10.2021, opposing the reliefs sought for. The applicant filed Ext.P4 rejoinder dated 15.12.2021.

3. After considering the rival contentions with reference to Rule 7 and Rule 7A of the Kerala Government Servants’ Medical Attendance Rules, 1960, the Tribunal, by Ext.P1 order dated 15.03.2024, dismissed O.A.No.597 of 2021. Paragraphs 9 to 11 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P1 order read thus;

                  “9. It is clear from the reading of Rule 7 that it is applicable to the cases where the Government employee was stationed or travelling on duty outside the State. Since the applicant was not stationed or travelling on duty outside the State, this Rule does not come to his rescue.

                  10. As regards Rule 7A, reimbursement for special treatment outside the State is admissible only if prior sanction of the Director of Health Services (DHS) has been taken, as also, the conditions stated therein have been fulfilled/certified by the DHS. The applicant's case does not fulfill these criteria as well. Hence, Rule 7A too won't help the applicant's cause.

                  11. We also note that there is no material on record to suggest that there was any intimation to the head of office or the head of department either before proceeding to Bangalore or during the period of his stay/hospitalisation at Bangalore. Similarly, there is no material on record to throw light on whether any leave permission was taken for a private visit outside the State.

                  In view of the foregoing discussion and given the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the applicant is not entitled for medical reimbursement for treatment availed outside the State while on a private visit.

 As a result, the Original Application fails and is accordingly dismissed.”

4. Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 15.03.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.597 of 2021, the petitioner-applicant is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. On 05.01.2026, when this original petition came up for admission, the matter was admitted on file. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for the respondents.

6. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. The issue that requires consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1 order dated 15.03.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.597 of 2021, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal is one issued without properly considering the legal and factual contentions raised by the applicant. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order is perverse and patently illegal, which warrants interference in this original petition, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order, after taking note of the relevant provisions contained in Kerala Government Servants’ Medical Attendance Rules, 1960, is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

11. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.

12. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

13. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

14. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.

15. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the Tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

16. The petitioner-applicant retired from service on 31.05.2025, while working as a P.D. Teacher in the Government Lower Primary School, Paruva, Pathanamthitta district. In the original application, the applicant’s case was that, while in service, he went to Bangalore, along with his family, on 18.12.2018 for personal reasons, after availing casual leave. He had a stroke (Colloid Cyst) while staying in a hotel at Bennerghatta, and was immediately taken to the nearby hospital, i.e., Fortis Hospital. He had a previous history of stroke and surgery on the brain. As the applicant’s condition was serious, he was admitted to the Emergency Department, where he had undergone surgery on the brain (Navigation Guided Left Fronto Parietal Craniotomy and Excision of Recurrent/Residual Colloid Cyst). He underwent inpatient treatment in that hospital till 22.12.2018. Annexure A1 is the discharge summary dated 22.12.2018, issued by Fortis Hospital, and Annexure A2 is the essentiality certificate dated 27.12.2018, issued by the Consultant Neurosurgeon, Fortis Hospital. As per Annexure A3, the inpatient bill dated 22.12.2018, issued by Fortis Hospital, the applicant had spent a sum of Rs.4,04,435/- for treatment at Fortis Hospital.

17. In Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India [(2018) 16 SCC 187], in the context of reimbursement of medical claim under Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) for treatment availed in emergency circumstances in non-empanelled hospitals, the Apex Court held that, it is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his service or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialised in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. On the question as to whether taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government order, the Apex Court held that the right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds.

18. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would place reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Nisha Elias [2026 KHC OnLine 1890].

19. In Nisha Elias [2026 KHC OnLine 1890], the Division Bench, in which both of us are parties, was dealing with a case in which it was not in dispute that the respondent-petitioner had actually undergone treatment at Christian Medical College, Vellore, for the period from 10.11.2022 to 24.11.2022 and from 15.12.2022 to 01.01.2023, and the factum of treatment in the Department of Haematology is supported by Ext.P1 receipt dated 24.11.2022, Ext.P2 discharge summary dated 01.01.2023 and Ext.P3 receipt dated 10.01.2023. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha [(2018) 16 SCC 187], this Court held that, when there no dispute as to the treatment which had undergone by the respondent-petitioner at Christian Medical College, Vellore and the factum of treatment is supported by Exts.P1 to P3 receipts/discharge summary, the claim for medical reimbursement made by the respondent cannot be denied on technical grounds, by stating that all departments of Christian Medical College, Vellore, were included for the purpose of medical reimbursement of Government employees, only by Government order dated 13.03.2023.

20. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner-applicant had actually undergone treatment in a private hospital, namely, Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, in December 2018, since he had a stroke (Colloid Cyst) while staying in a hotel at Bennerghatta. He had a previous history of stroke and surgery on the brain. Since his condition was serious, he was admitted to the Emergency Department, where he had undergone surgery on the brain (Navigation Guided Left Fronto Parietal Craniotomy and Excision of Recurrent/Residual Colloid Cyst). He underwent inpatient treatment in that hospital till 22.12.2018, which is evident from Annexure A1 discharge summary dated 22.12.2018 and Annexure A2 essentiality certificate dated 27.12.2018. As per Annexure A3 inpatient bill dated 22.12.2018 he had spent a sum of Rs.4,04,435/- for treatment at Fortis Hospital.

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha [(2018) 16 SCC 187], the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the original application, declining the claim for medical reimbursement for the treatment availed by the petitioner-applicant, outside the State, in emergency circumstances, in a non-empanelled hospital.

In the above circumstances, the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order dated 15.03.2024 in O.A.No.597 of 2021 cannot be sustained in law. In the result, this original petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal and the competent among the respondents are directed to reimburse the eligible amount payable to the petitioner-applicant towards medical reimbursement, for the treatment he had availed at Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, covered by Annexure A3 inpatient bill dated 22.12.2018, which is supported by Annexure A1 discharge summary dated 22.12.2018 and Annexure A2 essentiality certificate dated 27.12.2018, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.