B. RAMALNGAM v. The Director of Elementary Education NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 6000062 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.No.35634 of 2007& M.P.No.1 of 20071 B. RAMALNGAM [ PETITIONER ] Vs1 THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 6000062 THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATONAL OFFICER COONOOR THE NLGIRIS[ RESPONDENTS ]Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to immediately release the petitioner's wife's medicalexpenses to the petitioner as per their sanctioning order dated31.3.2001 and 24.5.2001For Petitioner:Mr.M.Suresh ViswanathFor Respondents: Mr.V.R.Thangavel, AGPO R D E RBy consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this WritPetition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a mandamus directingthe respondents to immediately release the petitioner's wife'smedical expenses to the petitioner as per their sanctioning ordersdated 31.3.2001 and 24.5.2001.3. The brief facts leading to the facts of this case are set outhereunder:(i) The petitioner's wife was working as a Teacher in thePanchayat Union Middle School, Melur. While she was in service, shesuffered from Cancer and undergone extended simple MASTETOMY https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ treatment at G.K.N.Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore on 16.11.1996 andalso had post operation radiotherapy and chemotheraphy and thereaftershe died on 16.2.1997. For the above medical treatment, they haveincurred medical expenses for Rs.22,922.17. Hence the petitionerclaimed this amount as a legal heir of his wife.(ii) A claim has been made to the second respondent within time.It was considered and the second respondent recommended the amount tobe disbursed in his proceedings in R.C.No.1447/132/96 dated 24.5.2001and that proposal has been sent to the Treasury Department.However, it has been dragged on for the past six years. Therefore,as there is no action on the part of the respondents, the petitionerprayed for the above relief and filed this Writ Petition.4. The respondents have filed counter and stated that the wife ofthe petitioner Tmt.B.Seetha, who was working as a Teacher inPanchayat Union Middle School, Melur suffered from Breast Cancer andundergone a specialized surgery in Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital,Coimbatore on 16.11.1994 and for that treatment, they incurredmedical expenses for Rs.22,922.17, for which an application for themedical aid to the second respondent has been submitted on21.11.1995. According to the respondents, it is true that theapplication was scrutinised, a sum of Rs.17,192/- was sanctioned bythe second respondent in his proceedings dated 24.5.2001 and aproposal was sent to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner ofTreasuries and Accounts, Chennai for the payment of medicalassistance to the petitioner.5. The second respondent, namely District Elementary EducationalOfficer, Coonoor is competent to sanction the medical assistance tothe petitioner and the necessary proposals had been sent to theSpecial Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts,Chennai. The Special Commissioner returned the proposal in hisproceedings dated 4.3.2005 stating that the individual has not madethe claim within 60 days from the date of discharge from thehospital. The claim could not be admitted as instructed inGovernment Letter No.57995/Sal/99-1 dated 10.10.1999. It is anadmitted in the counter that the petitioner's wife had undergone asurgery on 16.11.1994 and discharged from the hospital on 4.1.1995.She filed her representation for medical assistance on 21.11.1995well after the 60 days of the discharge. Therefore, the petitioner'sclaim was not considered and they prayed for the dismissal of theWrit Petition.6. In the above background of pleadings, I have heard Mr.M.SureshViswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.R.Thangavel,learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.7. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the petitioner's wife had undergone surgery and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ incurred the medical expenses for which a claim has been made and thesecond respondent, who is the competent authority has also sanctionedthe amount. But, till date, it is not paid. He would furthercontend that the circumstances under which the treatment wasundergone and the claim was made could be seen by the respondents.Even after the recommendation was made on 24.5.2001, till date, thereis no payment and therefore a direction is necessary.8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for thepetitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in E.Ramalingam vs.The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai and another reported in2006 (4) CTC 832.9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleaderwould contend that it is true that the petitioner's wife hadundergone the surgery on 16.11.1994 and discharged from the hospitalon 4.1.1995. However, the application was filed on 21.11.1995, afterthe stipulated time for making a claim.10. In this case, the petitioner's wife was a Teacher. She hadsuffered Breast Cancer and undergone surgery on 16.11.1994 andincurred medical expenses for Rs.22,922.17. However, a sum ofRs.17,192/- was sanctioned by the second respondent in hisproceedings dated 24.5.2001. All the above facts are admitted andthe only reason for rejection of the claim appears to be that theclaim was made beyond the time prescribed in the Government Letter.11. In a similar circumstances, in the decision cited supra, thisCourt held as follows:"Insofar as the belated claim, I am of the considered viewthat the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on7.4.2004 due to heart attack and he underwent PTCA Stentingon 22.4.2004 and he was discharged on 25.4.2004 at the fagend of the academic year. Thereafter, he was involved inthe admission process in the college till the month ofJune, 2004. For the said reason, he could not make theclaim immediately and has made the same on 19.7.2004 i.e.after a delay of 23 days. In my opinion, in matters likethis, the time limit prescribed cannot be strictlyconstrued as the Government Order is only a beneficialexecutive order in favour of those who are entitled toclaim medical reimbursement. Denying such benefit purelyon technical ground of delay, in my view, would be denyingthe very right to which such persons are entitled to claimthe benefit of the Government Order. Moreover, I amconvinced with the reason adduced by the petitioner for notmaking the claim in time." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. In the light of the above decision and looking into thecircumstances under which the petitioner's wife had undergone thetreatment and incurred medical expenses, the claim was made and thesanction also accorded on 24.5.2001, it may not be proper for therespondent to keep the amount without disbursement. Therefore,considering the above circumstances and for the treatment of thepetitioner's wife and he had incurred medical expenses, I am of theconsidered opinion that the first respondent is to be directed todisburse the amount. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed todisburse the amount to the petitioner as sanctioned by the secondrespondent in his proceedings dated 24.5.2001 within a period of sixweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Theconnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarajrTo1 THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 6000062 THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATONAL OFFICER COONOOR THE NLGIRIS1 cc To Mr.M.Suresh Viswanath, Advocate, SR.36316W.P.No.35634 of 2007VS(CO)SRA(21/08/2009)