AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 8197 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to set aside the order
in G.O. Ms. No. 194 Finance dated 16.03.1993 and the letter dated 18.05.2000 and after setting aside the same, seeks for appropriate direction
from this Court for grant of medical expenditure incurred by the Petitioner for the brain surgery done by his father to remove the tumour.
The Tribunal ordered notice of motion in the Original Application on 10.11.2000. Pending the Original Application, the Tribunal did not grant
any such relief though a prayer was made to that effect.
On notice from the Tribunal, the first Respondent State had filed a reply affidavit dated 21.03.2001together with supporting documents.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 44083 of 2006.
In Paragraph No. 4(ii) of G.O. Ms. No. 194 Finance(Salaries) Department dated 16.03.1993, the persons who are eligible for medical re-
imbursement are set out, which reads as follows:
4(ii)The benefit under the scheme be extended to family members of Government employees specified in rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government
Employees Health Fund Rules 1991
The Amendment -I to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Rules, 1991 reads as follows:
These rules shall extend to the whole of the State of Taml Nadu. These rules shall apply to all categories of full time regular(Time-scale)
Government Employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu and their family members and to All India Service Officers serving in the State and to
their family members.
Family"" for the purpose of this scheme will include, ''Wife and Children'' of the Government servant. In case of female Government servant''
Husband and Children'' and in the case of unmarried Government servant the dependant parents.
Therefore, when the Petitioner applied for medical re-imbursement for the surgery undergone by his father, it was negatived on the ground that
he is a married Government servant and therefore, he cannot claim re-imbursement in respect of his father''s treatment, which is not provided under
the Rules.
The contention raised by the Petitioner was that such a restriction is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even a married
son is bound to protect his dependant parents and the description of ""Family"" has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Scheme
for medical re-imbursement.
In the reply affidavit, it was stated that the Government has no finance to make the expenditure from the health fund for all categories of persons.
In case of married government servant, the Scheme provides protection only for wife and children and once the term ""Family"" is defined, the
Petitioner cannot expand the definition of the term ""Family"". Though the Petitioner''s father''s ailment is covered by the Government Order and the
hospital in which he had undergone surgery is also covered, unless and until, the Petitioner''s father is covered by the definition of the term ""Family"",
he cannot seek to expand the scope of the Government Order or challenge the Government Order in view of its limited operation.
The Supreme Court vide its judgment in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc. Etc., , in paragraph 29, observed as
follows:
No state of any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of his project. That is why it only approves its projects to the extent it is
feasible. The same holds good for providing medical facilities to its citizens including its employees. Provision of facilities cannot be unlimited
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the stand of the Respondent State was either arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
constitution. The classification made by the State is well within its powers. Hence, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs.