IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.NO.28053 of 2008 G.Panneerselvam ..Petitioner -vs- The Director of Pension II Block III floor DMS Complex Chennai 600 006 ..Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.9.2008 for the Payment of Medical reimbursement amount of Rs.1,93,007/- or any eligible amount. For petitioner : Mr.T.R.Raj Gajenthran For respondent : Mrs.Lita Srinvasan, G.A O R D E R The writ petitioner, after serving for 35 years, retired as Elementary School Headmaster on 31.5.2008 and is drawing pension. He is a subscriber towards the Tamil Nadu Health Fund Scheme fund from 22.10.1973 onwards. He was admitted in Narayana Hrudailaya at Bangalore on 4.7.2008 and underwent surgery of Coronery artery by pass and was discharged on 19.7.2008. He has spent totally a sum of Rs.1,93,007/-. 2. He sent a representation along with all bills etc.to the respondent on 15.9.2007 for the purpose of reimbursement of the amount as per the G.O.Ms.No.378, Finance (P) Department, dated 13.10.2005. As per the Government Order, providing financial assistance to the Government pensioners, in respect of treatment in the listed hospitals, a contribution was increased from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/- with effect from 1.10.2001 in order to continue the same on self-financing basis. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a direction against the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.9.2008 for the payment of medical reimbursement of Rs.1,93,007/-. 4. Such right of the petitioner to have the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him cannot be denied by the respondent or cannot be denied by the respondent or cannot impose any condition that a particular type of treatment alone should be taken or the treatment should be taken in a particular hospital. The same was held in Ramalingam Vs. the Director of Collegiate Education reported in 2006 (4) CTC 832 and also in C.Nagamuthu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2006-3 LW 529. 5. It was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre vs. Unoin of India reported in 1995 (3) SCC 42 that the right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Government is under legal obligation to provide health facilities and continue in cases where the Government servant is required treatment in a specialised hospital. It is the duty of the Government to bear the said expenses. 7. In view of the above legal position, it is the duty on the part of the Government to approve the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. 8. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.9.2008 regarding payment of medical reimbursement amount of Rs.1,93,007/- and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ajr Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Director of Pension II Block III floor DMS Complex Chennai 600 006 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR.66417 1 cc to Mr.T.R.Raj Gajenthran, Advocate, SR.66090 ts (co) dv/2.12. W.P.NO.28053 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/