1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.327 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, O/o.The Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Theni District, Theni. 4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Andipatti, Theni District. : Appellants Vs. P.Saigainathan : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04.07.2007 made in W.P.(MD).No.6624 of 2005 on the file of this Court. PRAYER FOR WP(MD)No. 6624 of 2005: This Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in O.M.No. 4388/A4/01 dated: 07.02.2003 passed by the third respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent herein to sanction the Medical Aid fund of Rs. 1 lakh or 75% which is lesser as per the Tamil Nadu Government Employee's health Fund for reimbursement of the expenditure for petitioner's Kidney transplantation effected in the year 1997. For Appellants : Mr.R.Janakiramalu, Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.K.Kannan JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J] This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2007 made in W.P.(MD).No.6624 of 2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that the father of the respondent was a member of the medical reimbursement fund. The respondent had undergone the surgery in question at Madurai Kidney Foundation at Sumathy Hospital, Anna Nagar, Madurai. He submitted a representation to the third appellant claiming medical reimbursement under the scheme. The third appellant, by his proceedings dated 07.02.2003, rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the hospital, in which he had undergone surgery, is not included in the list of hospitals. 3. Challenging the said order dated 07.02.2003, the respondent filed W.P.(MD).No.6624 of 2005. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 04.07.2007, relying on a decision in K.Mani vs. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai and others reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 34, allowed the said Writ Petition and directed the appellants to grant medical reimbursement, as claimed by the respondent. 4. Challenging the said order dated 04.07.2007, the appellants have come up with the present Writ Appeal. 5. Similar issues, with regard to the treatment taken in the unlisted hospitals, mode of treatment not included in the Government Orders and belated applications submitted and whether it has to be considered or not, came up for consideration before this Court in the following Judgments passed by one of us [NPVJ] as well as other Learned Judges;- "(a).K.Subramanian K. V. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 267; (b).C.Nagamuthu V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [2006(2) MLJ 747]; (c).G.Elavazhagan v. Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 627; (d).E.Ramalingam V. Director of Collegiate Education reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 641 [D.MUEUGESAN, J]; (e).K.Balaswami V. Director of Pension reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 385 [P.JYOTHIMANI, J]; (f).K.Mani V Secy to Govt, Health & Family Welfare Dept reported in 2007(3) MLJ 34 [P.JYOTHIMANI, J]; (g).K.Sundararaj V.Mgmt. of T.N.S.T.Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, reported in 2006 4 MLJ 1183 [P.JYOTHIMANI, J]; and a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.280 of 2005, dated 04.07.2005". 6. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to health as Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the decision in State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1225 and again in the case of Paschin Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others v. State of W.B and another reported in AIR 1996 SC 2426. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In the light of the above categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the Writ Petition and directing the appellants to grant medical reimbursement as claimed by the respondent. 8. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order dated 04.07.2007 made in W.P.(MD).No.6624 of 2005 is confirmed. The appellants are directed to implement the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR NB To 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, O/o.The Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Theni District, Theni. 4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Andipatti, Theni District. DM:2011::MARCH:22::: JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.327 of 2011 04.03.2011 3P:5C:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/