G.O.Ms.No.556 should be interpreted as a clarification to G.O.Ms.No.400, extending benefits to those who had undergone Angioplasty, regardless of the date of treatment.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order cum letter issued by the second respondent, dated 8.1.2010, stating that the petitioner, who had undergone Angioplasty, was not entitled to the benefits provided under the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.400, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 29.8.2000. By the said communication the second respondent had stated that Angioplasty did not find a place in the list of diseases shown in the annexure appended to the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.400, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 29.8.2000, and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to reimbursement of the amount that he had spent in undergoin Angioplasty unless the State Government passes appropriate orders to extend the benefits provided under the said government order, to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has stated that he had joined the fourth respondent institute, as a Junior Instructor, on 27.7.1971. He had retired from service, after having rendered unblemished service for a period of nearly 33 years, on 31.3.2004, as a Senior Lecturer. It has been further stated that the petitioner had a heart ailment, when he was in service, in the year, 2001. He had approached the Madras Medical Mission Hospital, Mugappair, Chennai, and he had undergone the treatment, known as Angioplasty, from 19.11.2001 to 23.11.2001. He had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,19,740/-for the treatment rendered by the Madras Medical Mission Hospital, Chennai.

4. On 23.1.2002, he had applied for reimbursement of the medical expenses to the Commissioner of Technical Education, the second respondent herein, under the Tamilnadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme, for repayment of the said amount, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.141 Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 26.2.1996. The second respondent had passed orders, on 13.5.2002, directing the third respondent to issue a crossed cheque for a sum of Rs.89,805/-, which is 75% of the total claim made by the petitioner. However, there was no response from the third respondent, for a long time. Hence, the petitioner had sent several representations requesting the authorities concerned to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, for undergoing the treatment of Angioplasty. while so, by a letter, dated 16.9.2009, the third respondent had sent a reply stating that a letter had been sent to the first respondent to obtain the necessary exemption for the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, as the treatment known as Angioplasty was not covered by the Tamilnadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.400, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 29.8.2000.

5. It has been further stated that the Government of Tamilnadu had passed a government order, in G.O.No.556, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 8.11.2004, including Angioplasty and PTCA Stent in the list of surgeries, under the Tamilnadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme. Accordingly, Angioplasty and PTCA Stent had been included in the list under the group `Cardiology and Cardio Thoracic Surgery’ for the purpose of availing the necessary assistance under the Tamilnadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him during his service, for the treatment known as Angioplasty. As such, the impugned order cum letter issued by the second respondent, dated 8.1.2010, is arbitrary, illegal and void, especially, in view of the passing of the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.400 Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 29.8.2000. The petitioner has further prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the said communication of the second respondent, dated 8.1.2010, and