IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 17762 OF 2010(S) -------------------------- {OA.565/2009 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEALTH (GEN) RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF MEDICAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 3. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.K. KRISHNAN KUTTY, ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF STORES (RETIRED) CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI, GOPURATHINKAL, KAYANTTIKARA, MUPPATHADAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17762 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The respondent a retired Railway Employee underwent a cataract surgery in the Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences. The Railways refused to pay him medical reimbursement. The stand taken by the Railways is that in terms of the provisions of the Railways' reimbursement Scheme, cataract operation is not an emergency requirement and therefore, the retired officer ought to have gone to the Railway Hospital and could have gone to some private hospital only if referred by the Railway Hospital. 2. The Tribunal during hearing wanted the counsel for the Railways to state whether the W.P.(C).No.17762 of 2010 :: 2 :: Railway Hospital in Thiruvananthapuram has the facility for conducting cataract surgery. On instructions, he submitted that no such facility is available in the Railway Hospital and even if the applicant had gone from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram, he would have been only referred to another eye hospital. Taking this state of affairs into account, the Tribunal directed the Railways to pay the reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.7,500/-, or at admissible rate. At his age and with cataract, the petitioner's visit to Thiruvananthapuram would have been only to find that there is no ophthalmic surgeon in the Railway Hospital, and then to shunted off to another hospital under a reference by the Railway Hospital. It is unfortunate that the Railways thought it fit to W.P.(C).No.17762 of 2010 :: 3 :: spend public money, challenging the aforesaid decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Had the respondent been present, we would have imposed an order of costs, not less than Rs.10,000/- in his favour. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.