1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :29.06.2011 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.No.(MD).No.5958 of 2011 N.Ponnulingam .. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary (Finance Department) Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Pannagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 3.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4. 4.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records related to the Order dated 19.04.2011 in Na.Ka.No.G7/1493/2009 passed by the fourth respondent herein and consequently quash the same directing the respondents herein to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner herein. For Petitioner :Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh For Respondents :Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Challenging the rejecting the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement, the present petitioner has come up with the present petition. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the Police service in the year 1975 as Police Constable and got retired as Head Constable in the year 2010. Due to an accident, he sustained multiple fractures in his left leg. He has been taken to Government Hospital, Tirunelvei and kept as inpatient in Intensive Care Unit for three days. Since the condition became serious, he was shifted to Sri Ram Orthopaedic Hospital, Nagercoil. There, he had incurred a huge sum of Rs.1,57,203/- for the surgery and for other medical treatment. Since he is a Government employee, he has made an application to the 4th respondent with all relevant particulars for medical reimbursement and further the same was returned down on the ground that the name of the hospital in which the petitioner has taken treatment is not included in the Government Order. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4.Time and again, this Court has held that merely because name of the hospital has not been included in the Government order, medical reimbursement cannot be denied. The real fact to be seen is whether the petitioner has taken treatment and surgery has been performed on the concerned employee. Without considering the said fact, the impugned order came to be passed. 5.In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 19.04.2011 and the writ petition stands allowed. It is needless to say that the 4th respondent has to settle the entire claim for which the petitioner is entitled to, if there is no impediment. The above said exercise should be carried out by the 4th respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vs To 1.The Secretary (Finance Department), The State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Pannagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 3.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4. 4.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 20875: DM:2011:JULY:22:: W.P.(MD)No.5958 of 2011 29.06.2011 2P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/