JUDGMENT :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in Award No. IO/CHN/A/GI/0010/2019-2020 dated 13.05.2019 on the file of the first respondent which was communicated by communication dated 15.05.2019 by the second respondent.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in Award No. IO/CHN/A/GI/ 0010/2019-2020 dated 13.05.2019 on the file of the first respondent which was communicated by communication dated 15.05.2019 by the second respondent.

2. The facts in the case is that the third respondent's husband was an insurer covered under the New Health Insurance Scheme, 2014 for pensioners and he was admitted in hospital and he died on 22.06.2016. Thereafter, the third respondent sought reimbursement of treatment and the District Level Empowered Committee had recommended for reimbursement of treatment expenses. Subsequently, the petitioner informed the third respondent that treatment was taken in a non-network hospital and hence her claim cannot be acceded to on the basis of G.O. No. 171, Finance (Pension) dated 26.06.2014. Thereafter, the third respondent filed complaint to the first respondent and the first respondent after hearing the parties passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent's husband took treatment in a non-network hospital and hence, she is not entitled for reimbursement of the treatment expenses.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the issue involved in the case is no longer res integra. The issue has already been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court in the following judgments, wherein, it is held that the pensioner, who underwent treatment in a non network hospital, is also entitled for medical reimbursement:

(i) Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 187

“17. It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his lifetime or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court.”

(ii) Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.02.2019 made in W.A. No. 2749 of 2018, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chennai and Others vs. K. Rajendran and Others:

“7. We are unable to countenance the submissions made on