Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.ANNAMALAI versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.Annamalai v. The Secretary to Government - W.P(MD) No.3191 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1591 (24 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 24.04.2007

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

W.P(MD) No.3191 of 2007

C.Annamalai ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government

Finance (Salaries) Department,

Chief Secretariat,

Chennai -9

2.The Director of Pension,

259, Anna Salai,

III Block - II Floor,

D.M.S.Campus,

Teynampettai, Chennai - 6

3.The District Treasury Officer,

Collectorate Compound,

Madurai - 625 020 ... Respondents PRAYER

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the third respondent relating to OMU/965/07, dated 31.01.2007, and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to make payment of medical reimbursement without insisting the mode of treatment undergone within a specified period.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar,

Government Advocate

:O R D E R



Mr.D.Sasikumar, the learned government advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he had served as a Personal Assistant to the District Supply Officer, Collectorate, Sivaganga. Due to his illness, he had undergone treatment in Shenbagam Hospital, Anna Nagar, Madurai, from 09.10.2006 to 14.10.2006, for Old Inferior Wall and Antero Septal Infarctions and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.17,056/-

4. According to the petitioner, he had spent a total sum of Rs.17,056/- towards the operation. Hence, the petitioner had applied to the Director of Pension, Chennai, through the District Treasury Officer, Madurai, in the prescribed form, for the medical reimbursement, under the Tamil Nadu Government Pensioners' Health Fund Scheme. However, the second respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the treatment undergone by the petitioner is not found in the list of specialised surgery/treatment. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

5. In W.P.(MD)No.5313 of 2006 (Mookan Servai v. The Secretary to Government, Finance (Salaries) Department, Secretariat, Chennai and two others), the issue was that the treatment given to the claimant was not included in the approved list. An order, dated 11.8.2006, had been passed following the earlier decision of this Court in W.P.No.1175 of 2004 dated 14.3.2006, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.280 of 2005 dated 4.7.2005. Thereafter, several writ petitions have been allowed by this Court directing the Government to sanction the medical reimbursement to the petitioners therein. The Division Bench in para 6 of its Judgment had held as follows:-

"6. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned singe Judge. It is admitted that the petitioner had undergone treatment for his heart ailment and the Government Order, which is dated 17.3.1995, has not been updated to include other variations of the same surgery for the same ailment. Advancement in medical science has opened closed heart surgery with reference to the same ailment and there is no justification for the State to refuse to grant medical reimbursement for closed heart surgery, which is performed in dealing with the same ailment. Mere default on the part of the Government in not updating the list of treatments cannot be put against the claimant."

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the matter in the present writ petition is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court. Therefore, applying the above cited decisions to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the medical reimbursement of the respondent is unsustainable.

7. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 31.01.2007, is set aside and the respondents are directed to sanction the medical reimbursement to the petitioner, as applicable, towards the treatment of the petitioner in the concerned hospital. The respondents are directed to sanction the eligible amount to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

ssm

To

1.The Secretary to Government

Finance (Salaries) Department,

Chief Secretariat,

Chennai -9

2.The Director of Pension,

259, Anna Salai,

III Block - II Floor,

D.M.S.Campus,

Teynampettai, Chennai - 6

3.The District Treasury Officer,

Collectorate Compound,

Madurai - 625 020


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.