Dismissed

S. Peerkhan, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC15 Mar 2018WP(MD)/1277/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee whose medical reimbursement claim was rejected for treatment at a non-network hospital, sought a writ to compel payment. The Court directed the State Level Empowered Committee to dispose of the pending appeal within eight weeks and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to move the State Level Empowered Committee; Committee directed to dispose within eight weeks.

S. Peerkhan, Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.1277 of 2018

¶7

S.Peerkhan ...Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government, Finance (Pension) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

¶9

2.The District Collector, kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶10

3.The Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health Service Department, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶11

4.The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶12

5.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, PLA, Rathina Towers, 5th Floor, 212, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fifth respondent Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil in Na.Ka.No.21977/2015/ vy; 2 (15), dated 13.11.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the eligible amount to the petitioner under the provisions contained under Tamil Nadu Medical Attendance Rules irrespective of the fact whether the hospital is approved or not within specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohamad Asif For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.A.Shajahan

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶19

2.The petitioner is a retired Government Employee. He took

¶20

treatment in a non network hospital. Therefore his claim for medical reimbursement was rejected by the District Level Empowered Committee. The petitioner can very well avail the appeal remedy available before the State Level Empowered Committee. The petitioner is permitted to move the said Committee. On receipt of such appeal, the State Level Empowered Committee is directed to dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks.

¶21

3.With this liberty, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Secretary to Government, Finance (Pension) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

¶28

2.The District Collector, kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health Service Department, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 4.The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO.55960 +1CC TO M/S.A.SHAJAHAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.55460 +1CC TO M/S.N.MOHAMED ASIF, ADVOCATE, SR NO.55893

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.1277 of 2018 15.03.2018

¶30

tsg

¶31

MS/RSK/SAR-4/21.03.2018/2P.8C

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S. Peerkhan, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Peerkhan, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Krishnaveni Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Andrew Chandrakumar, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Arul Thai Suganthi Vs District Educational Officer

Harmander Singh, Vs P.Rajasekaran

K.Sankar Ganesh Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Krishnakumar Vs the District Collector