IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4470 of 2008 Between: C. Mallaiah S/o. Bheemaiah E.No. 100982, 5-15, Peddapur Village, Sadasivpet (Post) Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sanga Reddy Depot, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings No. H1/468(932)/2004-PO-I dt. 12-4-2005 and Office Order No. H1/468(932)/2005-PO-I dt. 25-11-2005 (not Communicated to Petitioner) as arbitrary, illegal, unjust contrary to law in violation of APSRTC Employees (Medical Attendant) Regulations 1963 and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all such benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in Sangareddy Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). On 03.09.2004, he was admitted to a private hospital at Hyderabad, namely Medicity, on account of his ailment. It is stated that an open-heart surgery was conducted on him on 06.09.2004. After recovery, he reported to duty and made a claim for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.1,01,917/-. The Depot Manager rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it does not accord with A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Medical Attendance) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Executive Director. The appeal was also rejected on 25.11.2005. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the stand of the petitioner as to the circumstances, under which he received the treatment, was not uniform. It is stated that at one point of time, the petitioner represented that he was admitted by his relations to a private hospital on account of emergency and at another stage, he is said to have pleaded that first he approached the A.P.S.R.T.C. Dispensary at Sangareddy and thereafter, the private hospital, on reference being made by the Area Hospital. It is stated that the private hospital referred to above is not recognized for reimbursement. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Corporation had established a hospital of its own at Hyderabad for extending treatment to its employees. Dispensaries are established at the District Head Quarters or other important places. Arrangement is also made for reference of cases to specialized hospitals, in case it is found that the hospital run by the Corporation does not have the facility to accord treatment. The manner in which the reimbursement is to be made is governed by the Regulations. It is no doubt true that under emergency circumstances, an employee can avail treatment even at non-notified hospitals. Under Regulation 4, such a facility is extended to the employees living in remote place. Regulation 7 prescribes the procedure for availing treatment at other than notified hospitals. The plea of the petitioner that he was at remote place when the ailment occurred to him and thereby he is entitled to the benefit under Regulation 4 cannot be accepted. The reason is that though the ailment is said to have occurred when he was at remote place, he was admitted to a hospital at Hyderabad or the suburb thereof. Further, the operation as such was conducted three days after the date of admission. There is nothing on record to disclose that the petitioner made any effort to contact the Head Quarters Hospital of the Corporation. So far as Regulation 7 is concerned, it mandates that a reference to a non-notified hospital can be made only by the authorized medical attendant. It is not established that any reference was made by authorized medical attendant in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:30.06.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}