JUDGMENT R. SUBBIAH, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order of dismissal dated 24.9.2007 passed in W.P. (MD) No.4933 of 2005 by the learned single Judge whereby the relief sought for by the appellant herein by way of issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the second respondent and for consequential direction to the second respondent to pay the balance medical reimbursement amount of Rs. 1,26,030/-with interest at 18% in respect of heart surgery undergone by his daughter, is rejected. 2. The facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal are as follows: The appellant herein was originally appointed as a conductor in the year 1971 in the erstwhile Southern Roadways Limited. When the said company was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Government by way of nationalisation by virtue of Act 37 of 1971, the appellant came into the service under the Pandiyan Roadways Corporation and presently which is known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai, having its headquarters at Madurai. The appellant was absorbed into the then Pandiyan Roadways Corporation on nationalisation of the Bus Transport Passengers Service owned by the Southern Roadways Limited. Presently, he is working at the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pudukkottai Division as Traffic Inspector. The appellant's daughter namely Punitha was referred to Madras Mission Hospital at Chennai to undergo open heart surgery. On 19.6.2001, his daughter had undergone a valve transplantation at Madras Mission Hospital at Chennai. According to the appellant, he had spent a sum of Rs. 2,26,030/- for her treatment. The employer of the appellant, the second respondent herein, had also sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 11.6.2001 towards the expenses for the treatment of his daughter as advance. Though, the appellant is eligible for the medical benefit without any limit, the balance amount of Rs. 1,26,030/- was not paid by the second respondent corporation. Since the said amount was not paid, he made representation to the Chief Minister Cell, in respect of which the appellant was informed by a letter dated 20.1.2004 that his request was under consideration. Thereafter, he had also sent several representations for the payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,26,030/- to the second respondent on various dates. Since the said amount was not paid, he made representation to the Chief Minister Cell, in respect of which the appellant was informed by a letter dated 20.1.2004 that his request was under consideration. Thereafter, he had also sent several representations for the payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,26,030/- to the second respondent on various dates. Since his request was not heeded to, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.No.11090 of 2004 for a direction against the respondents with regard to the payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,26,030/-. By order dated 22.4.2004, this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant herein. Accordingly, the respondents by considering the representation sent by the appellant requesting the payment of the balance amount of medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,26,030/- passed an order dated 5.8.2004, turning down the request made by the appellant herein. The said rejection order was passed mainly on the two grounds namely; "(i) The Madras Mission Hospital, Chennai is not an approved hospital for taking treatment as per the old scheme. (ii) There is no provision in the rules for payment of additional amount towards medical expenses more than the limit of Rs. 1,00,000/-." 3. Therefore, the appellant herein approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in W. P (MD) No. 4933 of 2005 praying to quash the order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the second respondent herein and consequently, to direct the second respondent to pay the balance amount of medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,26,030/- with 18% interest from the date of his representation dated 3.7.2001. It is the case of the appellant in the writ petition when the Southern Roadways Corporation was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Government under the policy of nationalisation, by virtue of Act of 37 of 1971, it was agreed by the Tamil Nadu Government to provide all the benefits provided by the Southern Roadways Limited to all the employees till their retirement. Therefore, as per the term under 18(3) Settlement dated 2.6.1975, the appellant is entitled to claim unlimited medical benefits. Further, the respondent Corporation is deducting 4% medical allowances from the basic pay and allowance of the appellant herein in every month. Therefore, the denial of reimbursement of balance amount of Rs. 1,26,030/- is contrary to law. Therefore, as per the term under 18(3) Settlement dated 2.6.1975, the appellant is entitled to claim unlimited medical benefits. Further, the respondent Corporation is deducting 4% medical allowances from the basic pay and allowance of the appellant herein in every month. Therefore, the denial of reimbursement of balance amount of Rs. 1,26,030/- is contrary to law. Further, the Madras Medical Mission Hospital, Chennai has been also included in the medical hospitals list. But, without considering these aspects, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 5.8.2004 and as such, the order of rejection of the second respondent is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the respondent Corporation had stated in the counter affidavit that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- is in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the petitioner, and beyond that Rs. l lakh, the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for any more amount. Further, as per the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arrived at on 13.2.1999 between the management of State Transport Corporation of Tamil Nadu and the Federations of the Central Trade Unions, it was specifically agreed to that for such medical benefit involving surgery assistance only a maximum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is payable. Accordingly, in the present case, the appellant herein has been paid with the maximum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for his daughter's surgery undergone on 19.6.2001. Subsequent to the said settlement and during the currency of the settlement, the question of requesting the exceeding benefit provided under the said settlement is not maintainable and there is no illegality in the order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the second respondent in negating the request made by the appellant herein to pay the balance amount of medical reimbursement of Rs. l,26,030/-. 5. Learned single Judge based on the settlement dated 13.2.1999 has come to the conclusion that it was specifically stated in the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that special medical benefit involving surgery assistance is only for a maximum sum of Rs. 1 lakh and the petitioner had also been paid the said amount. Except the said settlement, there is no other provision under which the second respondent Corporation is made liable to pay any other amount and their commitment is limited by the settlement. 1 lakh and the petitioner had also been paid the said amount. Except the said settlement, there is no other provision under which the second respondent Corporation is made liable to pay any other amount and their commitment is limited by the settlement. Further, the learned single Judge has also come to the conclusion that once the appellant becomes an employee after nationalisation of the bus route, then he becomes the employee of the second respondent and as such he has to abide by the terms and conditions as specified in the settlement dated 13.2.1999 entered into between the parties. Hence, his present claim made for the reimbursement of medical claim without any ceiling, based on the earlier service conditions while he was in the services of Southern Roadways Corporation Ltd., cannot be considered, de hors the settlement which binds the appellant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant intensively contended that under Section 15(3) of the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriage (Acquisition) Act, 1971, it has been clearly mentioned that the benefits available to the employees could be extended even after nationalisation. Further, consequent to the undertaking given, by the Government to its employees under Section 15(3) of the said Act, a comprehensive medical code was prepared and brought into force with effect from 17.1.1972. The second respondent Corporation then as Pandiyan Roadways Corporation issued an elaborate circular detailing the treatments available to the employees who were recruited on or before 30.9.1978. Though there was a ceiling for taking specialist treatment in the said medical code to the effect that the employees whose salary is over and above Rs. 635/- were not eligible for specialist treatment, the said ceiling was also subsequently lifted with effect from 1.1.1983 by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 4.1.1983. The said medical code was also approved in the 8th Board Meeting of the second respondent Corporation held on 27.6.1999. But, without considering these settlement aspects, the learned single Judge by solely relying upon the 12(3) Settlement dated 13.2.1999 has come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for medical benefit more than that of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. The said medical code was also approved in the 8th Board Meeting of the second respondent Corporation held on 27.6.1999. But, without considering these settlement aspects, the learned single Judge by solely relying upon the 12(3) Settlement dated 13.2.1999 has come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for medical benefit more than that of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that during the relevant point of time when the daughter of the appellant underwent heart surgery, the settlement dated 13.2.1999, alone was operative and hence, the appellant, would be entitled only in accordance with the said settlement. Under such circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the prayer of the appellant based on the 12(3) settlement, dated 13.2.1999. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire records. 9. A perusal of the Clause 15(3) of the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriage (Acquisition) Act, 1971 reads as follows: "15(3) Every employee of the fleet operator exclusively employee in connection with the acquired property immediately before it notified date shall hold his office or service in the corporation or company referred to in sub-section 1) on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity, and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the acquired property had not vested in the Government and transferred to the corporation or company and continue to do so unless and until the employment in such corporation, or company is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions are duly altered to such corporation or company". 10. In addition to the proceedings of the following circular issued by the Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, detailing the treatments available to the employees who were recruited on or before 30.9.1978, shall also be taken into consideration in which circular it is stated as follows:. "(5) Specialist Treatment: Specialist treatment can be given through Corporation's authorised Specialists only. Employees getting basic salary of Rs. 635/- and above per mensem are not eligible for specialist treatment expecting Diagnosis and Preliminary investigation by Corporation's Specialist." 11. "(5) Specialist Treatment: Specialist treatment can be given through Corporation's authorised Specialists only. Employees getting basic salary of Rs. 635/- and above per mensem are not eligible for specialist treatment expecting Diagnosis and Preliminary investigation by Corporation's Specialist." 11. Further, from the proceedings dated 4.1.1983 issued by the first respondent it could be seen that the ceiling limit imposed on the employees for availing the specialized treatments under column 5 of the medical code referred to above, based on the basic salary of the employees was also lifted on 4.1.1983 wherein it has been stated as follows: "Please refer to column No. 5 "Specialist treatment" in Page No. 5 of our Medical Code. The same provides for certain restriction in availing specialist medical treatment facilities by the employees of this Corporation whose basic salary is- above Rs. 635/-. There have been representation from the employees in all categories (Working Group), Supervisory Group and Managerial Group) that by prohibiting extension of Specialist treatment on the basis of Basic Salary drawn by them, themselves and the eligible members of their family are put to difficulties and that the restriction in availing Specialist treatment may please be lifted etc., On careful examination of the representation and in consultation with the medical officers of this Corporation, the management is pleased to lift the ban in availing Specialist treatment by those employees whose basic salary exceeds Rs. 635/-. It is hereby ordered that effective from 1.1.1983 and subject to the employees' satisfying other conditions specified in the consolidated medical code, availing of Specialist treatment by those employees, whose basic salary exceed Rs. 635/- and the eligible members of their family can be permitted." 12. Therefore, a combined reading of proceedings of the first respondent dated 4.1.1983 and the consolidated medical code issued by the second respondent would clearly reveal that the appellant is entitled for the unlimited medical reimbursement without any ceiling since he committed more than 10 years of service in the second respondent corporation which is one of the conditions for availing medical benefit without any limit, since he was working right from the year 1971. 13. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion, the rejection of the prayer made in the writ petition solely based on the 12(3) settlement dated 13.2.1999 by the learned single Judge is not just and proper. 13. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion, the rejection of the prayer made in the writ petition solely based on the 12(3) settlement dated 13.2.1999 by the learned single Judge is not just and proper. In our considered opinion, when a beneficial scheme is available for an employee, it would not be correct to turn down his request based on a subsequent settlement which is less beneficial to the employee. In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion, the appellant is entitled for the balance amount of medical reimbursement. With regard to the other conclusion of the learned single Judge that once the appellant has become the employee of the second respondent after nationalization of the bus route, he becomes the employee of the second respondent and as such, he cannot claim based on the earlier service conditions as the employee of the Southern Roadways Corporation, cannot hold good, in view of the subsequent medical code elaborated by the second respondent. 14. For, the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal setting aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.9.2007 and we hereby direct the second respondent to pay the balance amount of medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,26,030/- with interest from the date of his representation dated 3.7.2001 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Appeal allowed.