Sri P. Naveen Rao, J. - (1.) Petitioner retired from service of respondent Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. At the time of retirement, petitioner was an Assistant Manager (T), which is in the Supervisory cadre. The respondent Corporation introduced scheme called the APSRTC Retired Employees Medical Facilities Scheme, 2003 (Scheme). Petitioner enrolled into the said scheme for provision of medical facilities as specified therein to the retired officers. It appears, the daughter of the petitioner lives in Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. To spend time with his daughters family, petitioner travelled to Bangalore in 2nd week of March, 2010. While in Bangalore, petitioner developed cardiac problem and was admitted to hospital in Bangalore and he was operated on 01.04.2010. He was discharged from hospital on 07.04.2010. According to petitioner, he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,83,019/- approximately towards said treatment. After recouping from the ailment, petitioner traveled back to his place. On 08.06.2010, petitioner submitted a representation seeking for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him. He has submitted a further representation on 21.06.2010. After waiting for considerable time, petitioner instituted this writ petition claiming for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by him.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Scheme, petitioner is entitled to seek reimbursement and even according to the scheme, no facilities are available for provision of treatment for heart surgery in the hospitals run by the Corporation and therefore, refusal to grant reimbursement is illegal. He further submits that corporation cannot insist petitioner to undergo treatment in the hospital of the Corporation or in private hospital only on a recommendation of the Superintendent. Learned counsel further submits that heart ailment requires urgent medical attention and surgical intervention and as the petitioner was in Bangalore, he could not travel down to Hyderabad for a reference by the Medical Superintendent to take treatment and to undergo surgery. Learned counsel further submits that having regard to the seriousness of ailment, reimbursement ought to have been granted and rejection to grant reimbursement on the ground that petitioner did not consult the Superintendent of the respondent Corporation Hospital and that his treatment in Bangalore was not preceded by a reference by the Superintendent of the respondent Corporation hospital is erroneous.;