AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order of the second Respondent dated 10.10.2008. By the impugned order, the second Respondent informed the Petitioner that a claim for expenses incurred towards the treatment of his wife cannot be considered, because under the scheme for pensioners to have medical reimbursement, the expenses incurred will not cover the wife. The Petitioner, who was a Government servant, got retired on 30.11.1993. After retirement, he is receiving pension and he was also a member of the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme.
The Petitioner''s wife, by name Mrs. Kamala @ Seethalakshmi got admitted in the hospital on 03.08.2008 and after undergoing an operation, she got discharged from the hospital on 12.08.2008. During that period, for the medical procedure, he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,50,683/-, for which, the Petitioner made a claim, which was rejected.
The contention of the Petitioner was that the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme provides for a coverage for pensioner''s wife to get reimbursement and subsequently, the State Government has announced in the budget speech made in the Assembly on 17.02.2009 that the spouse of the pensioners would also be included in the Pensioners'' Health Fund Scheme. Pursuant to the said announcement, the Government has issued G.O. No. 474, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 30.09.2009, including the spouses also for such a refund of the actual cost of treatment, subject to a maximum. But in the very same Government Order, it has been indicated that the same will apply only to the treatment/surgeries taken from 17.02.2009 till the date of issuance of the order, viz., on 30.09.2009.
In the present case, the Petitioner is not covered by the subsequent scheme and, therefore, the contention of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. Though Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, made a passionate plea that the Court must come to rescue the Petitioner, the said contention though may be attractive, but is not available to the Petitioner. The power of the Court to modify a scheme or apply a scheme with retrospective effect is certainly not available, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parameter under which the Court can deal with such scheme came to be considered by this Court vide judgment in K. Mani Vs. The Secretary to Government, Health and Famiy Welfare Department, The Director of medical and Rural Health Services, The Joint Director of Medical Services, Government Headquarters Hospital and The Superintendent of Police, . But, all those observations made therein will apply to a person, who is covered by a scheme and not to one who is outside the scheme.
Further, the Court had an occasion to consider the case of pensioners in the Postal Department, who subsequently got registered under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), vide judgment in Union of India (UOI) Vs. R. Rangarajan and The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, .
In the present case, the Petitioner''s case do not come within the parameters indicated in the above two decisions. This Court is unable to sustain the contentions made by the Petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.