Court Holds State Authorization Committee's "No Objection Certificate" Valid Despite Alleged Non-Compliance with Transplantation Act; Rejects Reimbursement Denial by Law Department
In a significant judgment dated September 23, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Munnuri Laxman and Bipin Gupta) ruled in favor of the legal representatives of the late Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur, a retired judicial officer, directing the State of Rajasthan to reimburse his medical expenses incurred for a kidney transplantation. The High Court overturned the rejection order by the Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department, which had denied reimbursement on the ground that the mandatory joint application requirement under Section 9(5) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, was not complied with.
The deceased petitioner had undergone a kidney transplantation at Remedy Hospital, Kolkata-a hospital not notified by the Rajasthan Government-and had obtained "No Objection Certificates" (NOCs) from both the State Authorization Committees of Rajasthan and West Bengal, where the donor resided and the surgery took place. Despite these authorizations, the Law & Legal Affairs Department disallowed reimbursement, alleging procedural irregularities in the issuance of the NOCs.
The Court meticulously examined the Rajasthan Judicial Officers (Medical Facilities) Rules, 2008, particularly Rule 5(iii) and 5(v), which entitle judicial officers to claim reimbursement for medical treatments even if performed outside notified hospitals, with no ceiling on reimbursement for treatments like kidney transplants. The Court emphasized that these Rules explicitly provide for full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by judicial officers irrespective of the location of treatment, thereby entitling the petitioner to reimbursement of expenses incurred at the Kolkata hospital.
Addressing the contention regarding non-compliance with Section 9(5) of the Transplantation Act, the Court noted that Section 9(5) requires a joint application by donor and recipient to the State Authorization Committee, which must hold an inquiry before granting approval. However, it was observed that the Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department is not the appellate authority under the Act and hence lacks jurisdiction to question the validity of the NOCs issued by competent State Committees. Furthermore, the Court underscored the presumption of regularity-that the Committees complied with legal requirements before issuing the NOCs.
The Court thus held the rejection order by the Secretary as beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable. It ordered the respondents to process and release the reimbursement claim along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim to the legal representatives of the deceased within one month. Additionally, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the respondents to be paid to the petitioner's legal heirs.
This ruling reinforces the medical facility entitlements of retired judicial officers and clarifies the non-interference scope of administrative authorities in authorization matters under the Transplantation Act, ensuring procedural sanctity and protecting the rights of beneficiaries.
Bottom Line:
Rajasthan Judicial Officers (Medical Facilities) Rules, 2008 - Retired Judicial Officer undergoing kidney transplantation in a non-notified hospital outside the State - Reimbursement of medical expenses cannot be denied on the ground that the State Authorization Committee's "No Objection Certificate" allegedly did not comply with Section 9(5) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department is not the appellate authority under the Act of 1994 and cannot sit in appeal over authorization granted by competent State Authorization Committees - Full reimbursement directed with interest and costs.
Statutory provision(s):
Rajasthan Judicial Officers (Medical Facilities) Rules, 2008 Rule 5(iii), Rule 5(v); Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 Sections 9(5), 17
Shakuntla Mathur v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000414
