SUBRAMANI P Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the employee of the judiciary praying therein for a writ of certiorari quashing the communication dated December 13, 1999 by the second respondent Registrar and directing the respondents to provide medical aid of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner. Following facts will highlight the controversy.

(2.) Petitioner who was at the relevant time working as junior bailiff, was suffering from diabetes for a long time and on his condition becoming worse, he was admitted to J.M. Hospital, Trichy. It was diagnosed that his kidneys were affected and surgery had to be performed to save his life and accordingly two surgeries were performed; one on April 15, 1997 on the right kidney and on June 16, 1997 on the left kidney. These surgeries were performed in a private hospital.

(3.) The State of Tamil Nadu had floated a scheme called "Government Employees' Health Fund" by its order dated January 9, 1992. Under that, the Government employees were to receive the medical help from a health fund created jointly by the contributions of the Government servants as also by the Government on the other side. Rules were also framed for the creation and governance of the said fund. It was however incumbent that the treatment should be taken only from particular hospitals. However, that condition of taking the treatment from the particular Government hospitals was also relaxed by the Government by its order dated May 5, 1994 bearing No. 16518/ SAL.I/94-2. By that order, a clarification was provided that there was no bar in granting of assistance for the other recognised and standard private hospitals in the State, provided the Heads of Departments verified the genuineness of the treatment as also the existence of such hospital etc. The Government also provided that the Heads of the Departments were to be solely held responsible on the correctness of such sanctions. In short, if the Head of the Department had certified that the treatment was genuinely taken in a private hospital which was in existence, the said employee was still entitled to the medical help. The petitioner therefore filed a representation to the Registrar, the second respondent on December 19, 1997 through the District Judge who was his Head of the Department. Needless to say that it is not controverted before us that the District Judge had also certified the treatment as well as the existence of the hospital in Trichy. It however seems that the second respondent returned that application as per his letter dated December 13, 1999 in ROC No.4249/98/C4, wherein the second respondent had expressed his inability to provide the medical help by reimbursing the petitioner for the bills. It was written by the Registrar to the District Judge, Trichy that the petitioner who was a junior bailiff was not eligible to the claim as per the Government Letter dated October 28, 1999.