( 1 ) PETITIONER, a retired Addl. District and Sessions, delhi by this petition seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing orders dated 13. 5. 2000 and 24. 7. 2000, rejecting his claim for medical reimbursement. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents to sanction and release his medical claim of Rs. 2,00,239/- (Rupees two lacs two hundred thirty nine only ). Petitioner s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses relates to the angioplasty with a stent being fixed at the Escorts Heart Institute and Research centre (hereinafter referred to as the EHIRC) during 19th to 23rd October,1999.

( 2 ) PETITIONER had been compulsorily retired by Delhi High Court on 1. 6. 1993. Petitioner challenged the said order by way of a writ petition bearing no. 4354/93. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on 18. 2. 2000. As a result of the writ petition being allowed, it was held that the petitioner continued in service with all consequential benefits till the date of his superannuation i. e. 31. 8. 1998.

( 3 ) PETITIONER applied for becoming member of the Scheme providing medical facilities to the employees/ pensioners of Delhi Government, vide his letter dated 14. 10. 1999. Petitioner notified his basic scale of pay as 5,700/- per month at the time of retirement. He requested for issuance of the health card. The application was duly received by the respondent, Competent Authority. Respondents noted that the officer (petitioner) had not been drawing pension for the reasons not known and approval was sought for issuance of medical card. It appears that the application was not processed, since the petitioner had not been drawing pension, though the factum of retirement was on record, on account of endorsement made on 3. 6. 1993. Pension papers were being awaited for processing the application. Subsequently on 20. 1. 2000, the Executive Officer allowed the application and required the subscription amount of Rs. 600/- to be deposited. The petitioner s case is that after his compulsory retirement, on account of writ petition filed challenging his compulsory retirement in which he ultimately succeeded, he had in the interregnum not drawn pension.

( 4 ) BE that as it may, even when subsequently on 20. 1. 2000, the membership of the Health Scheme was granted to the petitioner, it was done prior to the disbursement of pension to the petitioner. Petitioner s claim for pension was made only subsequent to the judgment of Division Bench allowing writ petition.

( 5 ) PETITIONER s claim for reimbursement has been denied by respondents on the ground that when the treatment was received, petitioner was not a member of the Health Scheme and he became member of the health scheme, when the subscription was deposited on 22. 1. 2000 and the card was prepared and issued on 24. 1. 2000.

( 6 ) ON merits, respondent No. 4 in the counter affidavit has taken the position that the petitioner had been referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in ]une,1999. He had been advised angioplasty, but he did not get the angioplasty done. It is claimed that there was no reference made to the EHIRC for treatment. It is contended that this was not a case of an emergency. Petitioner after angiography in June, 1999 had been advised angioplasty. At that time EHIRC was not an empanelled hospital.

( 7 ) AS per the clarification No. F. 27 (9)/97-Mandph/7865 dated 28. 3. 2002, annexure R-4/1, issued by Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi government, the reimbursement was to be made only in case, claimant was a member of the Delhi Government Health Scheme and it was prospective. Simply because of tendering of subscription amount later, petitioner could not be given enefit with retrospective effect. It was averred that the prescription issued by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Annexure R-2, would show that the petitioner had been attending hospital with complaint of recurrent synoscope since 1996, with diabetes mellitus since three years with