IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.12.2008 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.NO.27368 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 V.S.Krishnan ..Petitioner -vs- 1. Government of Tamilnadu rep. By its Special Secretary, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. ..Respondents The Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that the order passed by the first respondent in letter No. 57995/Salaries/99-1 dated 10.10.99 in so far as prescribing 60 days time limit for making application for financial assistance under the Tamilnadu Government Employees Health Fund scheme and the order dated 16.02.2008 passed by the second respondent in Dis.No.1926/2008/E1 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reimburse the petitioner the medical expenses with 12% interest. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Hariparanthaman For Respondents : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, AGP O R D E R (Order of the Court was delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J) The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, for declaration that the order passed by the 1st respondent in letter No.57995/Salaries/99-1 dated 10th October, 1999, in so far as prescribing 60 days time limit for making application for financial assistance under the Tamilnadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme and the order dated 16th February, 2008 passed by second respondent, Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reimburse the petitioner the medical expenses with 12% interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner is an employee in the City Civil Court, Chennai. Originally, he was appointed in the Tamil Nadu Highways Department as Junior Assistant on 1st March, 1978 and on selection through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in Judicial Ministerial Service in 1980. He was posted to work in Labour Court, Chennai and in the meantime, in the year 1993, he was promoted as Assistant and transferred to NDPS Court, Chennai. For the present, he is working as Assistant in City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that on 23rd July, 2007, while he was coming back to Court after taking lunch around 2.00 p.m., he fell down while climbing down from the platform in NSC Bose Road opposite to High Court. Due to the fall, he sustained severe injuries and bone fractures to his hip and leg. Immediately, he informed about the accident to the office and was taken to the Government General Hospital, Chennai-3. He was given first aid and other treatments in Government Hospital. However, the Doctors informed him that operation can be performed only after two or three months, due to shortage of staff. He was admitted to Vijaya Health Centre at Vadapalani, Chennai. He was admitted there as Indoor patient on 23rd July, 2007 and surgery was performed on 25th July, 2007. He was discharged from the said hospital on 6th August, 2007, but was advised to take post operative care and treatment including physiotherapy. He was also advised to use walker till the injuries completely got cured and healed. Even after discharge, he was continuously going for physiotherapy as advised by the doctors. Therefore, he was not able to stand or walk freely even with the aid of walker or others. 4. The petitioner was on medical leave from the date of accident and since there was no leave to his credit, he was sanctioned only leave without pay. He rejoined duty on 2nd January, 2008, whereinafter he submitted application on 8th February, 2008 along with medical bills and requested the 2nd respondent to sanction and reimburse the sum of Rs.1,05,066/- towards medical expenses, which he incurred for surgery and treatment. It was further stated that even after joining on 2nd January, 2008 he is not able to move or walk freely and he has to take more efforts and pain for his normal movement. 5. When the petitioner was waiting for a favourable order, he received the impugned order dated 16th February, 2008, whereby the Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai giving reference to Government letter No.57995/Salaries/99-1 dated 10th October, 1999 issued from Finance (Salaries) Department, rejected the application for medical reimbursement on the ground that he had not submitted the application in prescribed form and within the stipulated time of 60 days from the date of discharge from the hospital as required in the aforesaid letter of the Government. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to the scheme brought in by State Government under Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Rules, 1991. It was stated that in the absence of any time limit fixed therein, by Government instructions, no time limit can be framed for submitting the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application for reimbursement of medical expenses and any time limit so prescribed is illegal and arbitrary. He also relied on one or other Judgements of this Court and Supreme Court. 7. Inspite of time allowed to the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, no counter affidavit has been filed. The fact as stated by the petitioner has not been denied. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, giving reference to letter No.57995/Salaries/99-1 dated 10th October, 1999 submitted that the petitioner having not applied for reimbursement of amount within 60 days from the date of discharge from the hospital, the application has been rightly rejected by 2nd respondent. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It appears that the State Government was concerned at the distress caused to families of Government employees, when the employee is struck by a major ailment. Having noticed that in modern society it is usually possible to get medical assistance to cure/correct such maladies, the State Government further noticed that Coronary bye-pass surgery and renal transplantation have now been made possible. Some of those remedies being very expensive causing great hardship to the Government employees, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.No.18, dated 9th January 1992 decided to constitute a fund to extend grants/loan assistance to the Government employees for surgery and treatment by medical aid. The State Government decided to constitute a "Government Employees Health Fund" to provide measure of relief to Government employees so affected. On the basis of the scheme, Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Rules, 1991 was framed. The relevant portion relating to the scope, extent of application, constitution of Fund and procedure for assistance as shown under Rule 1991 are extracted hereunder:- "1. Scope : The scope of these rules shall be to constitute a separate fund for the purpose of granting financial assistance to Government servants who have to undergo certain specialised advanced surgery/treatment for which facilities are not ordinarily available at the Government Medical Institutions. 2. Extent of Application: These rules shall extend to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu. These rules shall apply to all categories of full-time regular (time-scale) Government employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 3. Constitution of the Fund:- There shall be constituted a Fund for the purpose of granting financial assistance to Government employees who undergo specialised advanced surgery or treatment either https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in India or abroad. The fund shall be constituted with an annual subscription of Rs.5 (Rupees five only) from each employee from his salary for the month of June every year, and the amount shall be credited into the Deposit account. 4....... 5. Procedure for Assistance:- Financial Assistance to employees shall be granted for the fund subject to the following conditions:- (a) Employees seeking assistance under these rules shall apply to the Administrative Department concerned through their Head of Department with such evidence as may be necessary or relevant to establish the need for the proposed special treatment for which assistance is sought. (b) The Heads of Department shall process the applications in consultation with the Director of Medical Education or Director of Medical and Rural Health Services as the case may be, and forward them along with their recommendation to the Director of Treasury and Accounts in the first instance. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, shall, for each case, indicate the balance in the fund before sanction of the amount covered therein assuming full sanction of the amount covered by it and forward it to the Administrative Department of Secretariat. (c) The Administrative Department of Secretariat shall examine the application in consultation with Finance Department and issue orders thereon, to the Director of Treasuries and Accounts to release the sanctioned amount. (d) The Director of Treasuries and Accounts shall operate to the Personal Deposit Account for the fund and issue cheques of Demand Drafts, as the case may be, and intimate the Heads of Departments concerned. (e) Payments from the Fund shall ordinarily be made by crossed cheques/drafts drawn in favour of the medical institution where the employee proposes to undergo treatment. This requirement may be relaxed in exceptional cases where such procedure would be impracticable or cause hardship. ......." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. It appears that the maximum grant originally was to the extent of Rs.25,000/- or the total assistance whichever is lower. But, it was enhanced by subsequent Government orders upto Rs.1 lakh. 11. It appears that the Special Secretary to the Government by letter No.57995/Salaries/99-1 dated 10th October 1999, giving reference to a letter No.47598/99/H4 dated 26th July 1999 from the Commissioner of Treasuries, issued certain directions, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "Sir, Sub: Medical aid – quick action to provide financial assistance under the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Medical Assistance Scheme – giving advice – reg. Ref: Letter No.47598/99/H4 dated 26.07.99 from the Commissioner of Treasuries. In acceptance of guidelines proposed by the Commissioner of Treasuries regarding timely and quick disposal of claims made for financial assistance under the Government Employees Medical Fund without delay, the following advices are given: a) The Government servant, who is making application for financial assistance under the Government Employees Medical Fund, shall submit the same in the form prescribed in the Government letter No.46490/Salaries/99-2 dated 11.08.99, within 60 days from the discharge from the hospital to the competent authority of the Department to which he belongs to. The applications which are not submitted within 60 days from the date of discharge from the hospital need not be considered. b).... c)... d)... e)...." 12. Giving reference to the aforesaid letter dated 10th October 1999, the Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai issued the impugned order of rejection dated 16th February 2008. 13. In the case of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (1996(7) SCC 336), the Supreme Court, while dealing with medical claim observed that self-preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. In E.V.Kumar vs. The Union of India (2003(4) CTC 29), while dealing with medical claim reimbursement, this Court held that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rule, on the basis of normal general principle laid down by Supreme Court. 15. In similar case of E.Ramalingam vs. The Director of Collegiate Education (2006(4) CTC 832), taking into consideration the fact that rejection of the claim for medical reimbursement which was submitted after delay of 23 days excluding 60 days from the date of discharge was illegal, this Court held that the time limit prescribed cannot be strictly construed as Government order is beneficial Executive Order in order to claim medical reimbursement. This Court further held that real test must be factum of treatment before medical claim is honoured. 16. In the present case, the respondents have not disputed the factum of treatment. It is also not in dispute that the treatment for ailment both as indoor patient and outdoor patient after operation at post operative stage, by way of physiotherapy, as stated by the petitioner. In such a situation, nobody can take the date of release from the hospital as the cut off date to count some sort of period of limitation to reject the application. Further, we find that the scheme for medical reimbursement under the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Rules, 1991 is a beneficial legislation, wherein no time limit is fixed by the Government under the Rules. In such a situation, giving reference to the Commissioner of Treasuries letter dated 26th July, 1999 for quick disposal of claims, the Special Secretary of the Government has no jurisdiction to frame a time limit of 60 days from the date of discharge from the hospital to file a claim for medical reimbursement. 17. In the case of State of Punjab and others vs Mohinder Singh Chawla and others (1997(2) SCC 83), taking into consideration that the claim for medical reimbursement cannot be denied on the ground that it is contrary to the Government resolution dated 25th January, 1991 of the said case, the Supreme Court observed, as right to health is integral to the right to life and the Government is under a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. 18. In this background we hold that paragraph (a) of letter No.57995/Salaries/99-1 dated 10th October 1999, whereby the Special Secretary to Government prescribed time limit of 60 days from the date of discharge from the hospital for claiming medical reimbursement is arbitrary and illegal. The said paragraph (a) of letter No.57995/Salaries/99-1 dated 10th October 1999 is accordingly set aside. The impugned order dated 16th February 2008 passed by the Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai, being passed on the basis of clause (a) of the aforesaid illegal letter dated 10th October 1999 is also set aside. The case is remitted to the respondents to issue order for medical reimbursement to the extent to which the petitioner is entitled under law, on the basis of the documents submitted by him without making technical dispute that it has not been submitted in the prescribed format. If so, require the petitioner be providing with form and signature be obtained from him. The actual reimbursement be made within two months from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% on such dues from the date on which the petitioner filed the application for reimbursement. 19. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations. But, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rg To 1. The Special Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 c.c. to Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, Advocate. S.R.No.70194. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.70047. W.P.NO.27368 of 2008 SA (CO) GSK 23.12.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/