S. Govinda Rao Vs The Director of School Education, The District Elementary Educational Officer and The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) 22 Jul 2011 Writ Petition No. 2779 of 2006 (2011) 07 MAD CK 0270
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 2779 of 2006

Hon'ble Bench

Vinod K. Sharma, J

Advocates

AL. Gandhimathi, for the Appellant; D. Muruganandam, Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Vinod K. Sharma, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, praying for a Writ in the na ture of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 10.05.2005, passed by the second Respondent, vide which the medical reimbursement claim of the Petitioner stands rejected for not having been raised within sixty days.

2. The t ranslated version of the impugned order reads as under:

Proceedings of Thanjavur District Elementa ry Educational Officer Na.Ka. No. 6331/A1/2000 dated 10.05.2005

Sub:Medical Fund to Tamil Nadu Government Employees Scheme - 1991 - Aid to Prima ry School Teachers and others. Mr. S.Govindarao, Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Perumankudi a t Govirasapuram, Papanasam - Reg.

Ref: (1) S. Govindarao Application dated 16.06.1999.

(2) Proceedings of District Elementa ry Educational Officer, Thanjavur in Na.Ka. No. 6331/A1/2000 dated 07.06.2002.

(3) Proceedings of Director of School Education, in Na.Ka. No. 46341/EG3/99 dated 26.08.2000.

(4) Proceedings of Director of School Education, in Letter O.M.N.34140/J3/2000 dated 05.09.2002.

(5) Proceedings of District Elementa ry Officer, Thanjavur in Na.Ka. No. 6331/A1/2000 dated 16.10.2002.

Papanasam Union, Perumankudi Panchayat Middle School, Retired Headmaster Mr. S. Govinda rao have applied for Medical Fund on 16.06.1999. On perusal of the application he has claimed 75% of expense occurred for his heart bye pass opera tion.

S. Govinda rao has underwent t reatment and returned from hospital on 24.03.1999. As per Government Letter 57955 Salary 1999-1 dated 10.10.1999 he should apply to us for medical reimbursement within 60 days (i.e., 24.05.1999) from the date of his discharge from the hospital.

But, he has applied only on 16.06.1999. Since he has explained for the delay and requested Chief Secretary to accept his application.

Hence, after considering his request the District Elementa ry Educational Officer on 16.10.2002 forwarded the same to Director of School Education and the same was returned sta ting tha t District Elementa ry Educational Officer himself has the power to release the fund. Hence the memorandum is returned to District Elementa ry Educational Officer and he is directed to act as per by Government Letter No. 20042 Salary 2000 - 1 dated 08.08.2000. As per the G.O., Mr. Govindarao has not applied within 60 days and we a re unable to release the Medical reimbursement fund.

Memorandum returned.

District Elementa ry Educational Officer Thanjavur

3. It is not in dispute, tha t the Petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement, In fact, the Bill raised by the Petitioner was recommended for payment. The recommendation for the payment was not accepted, for having not submitted it within a period of 60 days. There was delay of 23 days in submitting the Bill.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently contends, that the impugned order, cannot be sustained in view of the J udgment of this Court in E. Ramalingam Vs. The Director of Collegiate Education and The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tiruchirapalli Region, wherein this Court, was pleased to lay down as under:

5. Insofar as the belated claim, I am of the considered view tha t the Petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 07.04.2004 due to hea rt a ttack and he underwent PTCA Stenting on 22.04.2004 and he was discharged on 25.04.2004 a t the fag end of the academic year. Thereafter, he was involved in the admission process in the college till the month of J une, 2004. For the said reason, he could not make the claim immediately and has made the same on 19.07.2004 i.e., after a delay of 23 days. In my opinion, in ma tters like this, the time limit prescribed cannot be strictly construed as the Government Order is only a beneficial executive order in favour of those who a re entitled to claim medical reimbursement. Denying such benefit purely on technical ground of delay, in my view, would be denying the very right to which such persons a re entitled to claim the benefit of the Government Order. Moreover, I am convinced with the reason adduced by the Petitioner for not making the claim in time.

5. The period of sixty days has been prescribed only by way of administra tive order of the Sta te Government, for early payment of medical expenses, it cannot be held to be manda tory so as to deny the right of the reimbursement, to which the employee is entitled to under the Service Rules.

6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the second Respondent, dated 10.05.2005 is quashed.

7. The Respondents a re directed to process and release the payment of medical reimbursement, to the Petitioner within a period of two months of date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

No costs.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More