Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to reimburse to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, spent on the cancer treatment given to the petitioner’s husband, together with the interest thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the original claim, till the date of the payment of the claimed amount. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner’s husband, late Kumaravel, had joined in the service of Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation, on 28.2.1981. Later, he had been promoted as a Junior Tradesman and subsequently, as a Tradesman. He had been working in the R.C. Unit of the respondent Corporation, at Vellore. While so, he was residing at a rented house in Vellore. 3. It had been further stated that during the months of March and April, 2003, he had fallen ill and therefore, he had gone to Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, Porur, Chennai, for treatment. After the clinical examinations and the various tests performed by the hospital, he was diagnosed to be suffering from cancer of the rectum (carcinoma of rectum) with peritoneal and pelvic secondaries. Therefore, he had been admitted in the said hospital, as an inpatient, on 1.4.2003. After obtaining a biopsy report, an operation had been performed for the removal of the cancerous tumour. Thereafter, he had been discharged from the hospital, on 21.4.2003. 4. It has also been stated that a total sum of Rs.1,57,264.65/- had been spent for the treatment given to the petitioner’s husband, including the various amounts spent on medicines, Chemotherapy, surgery, professional charges, room rent, diet and for other tests and for the reports. The petitioner’s husband had submitted a representation, dated 23.4.2003, to the respondent Corporation, requesting for the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred towards the treatment given to him and for other incidental expenses. After he had reported for work, on 4.7.2003, he was afflicted by jaundice and therefore, he had been admitted in the hospital, once again, on 31.8.2003, incurring a further expenditure of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 5. After he had reported for work, on 4.7.2003, he was afflicted by jaundice and therefore, he had been admitted in the hospital, once again, on 31.8.2003, incurring a further expenditure of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 5. It had also been stated that the petitioner’s husband had made his claim for the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred during the treatment given to him, as per the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’ formulated and implemented, based on clause 79 of the settlement, dated 13.2.1999, concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has been making his monthly contributions, as per the said Scheme. According to the scheme in question the workman are entitled to financial assistance, upto a maximum of Rs.1 lakh, towards the expenses incurred by them for heart surgery, and for certain other medical expenses, including kidney transplantation, cancer surgery, brain tumour surgery, both for the workman concerned and for their family members. 6. It has been further stated that the petitioner’s husband had died on 22.10.2003, leaving behind the petitioner and his son K.Praveen. Thereafter, the petitioner had made a representation, dated 9.9.2004, requesting the respondent Corporation to reimburse the medical expenses incurred for the treatment given to the petitioner’s husband. Even though the respondent had settled the terminal benefits of the petitioner’s husband no payment had been made, with regard to the amount due to the petitioner, under the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’ is available to the workmen of the respondent Corporation, as per the rules and regulations prescribed in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.400, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 29.8.2000. Under the subject Oncology, in Schedule I of Annexure I of the said Government Order, the medical procedures approved, for getting assistance, under the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’ are (1) Surgical Management of Malignancy (Cancer) and [2] Laser or Radiation Treatment of Cancer. 8. Further, in Schedule II of Annexure II of the said Government order, the list of accredited private hospitals had been given for the various specialities. 8. Further, in Schedule II of Annexure II of the said Government order, the list of accredited private hospitals had been given for the various specialities. Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai, in which the petitioner is said to have undergone treatment for cancer has been shown only for the specialities [1] Cardiology, [2] Orthopaedics, [3] Nephrology [4] Neurology and [5] Opthalmology. The said hospital had not been approved for Oncology treatment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the reimbursement of the amount said to have been spent on the treatment of cancer for her husband, Kumaravel. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the respondent Corporation had not denied the fact that the petitioner’s husband had undergone treatment for cancer at Sri Ramachandra Hospital at Chennai, and that it is one of the accredited hospitals for the various specialities as per G.O.Ms.No.400, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 29.8.2000. 10. He had also submitted that a sum of more than two lakhs had been spent on the treatment of the petitioner’s husband, for cancer and for jaundice. He had also stated that the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’ had come into existence pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the workmen and the management of the respondent Corporation, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. There is nothing mentioned, in clause 79 of the said settlement restricting the application of the scheme for treatments undergone by the workmen and the members of their families. However, the respondent Corporation is refusing to reimburse the amount incurred for the treatment of cancer, by raising hypertechnical pleas. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contention that reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred cannot be restricted on such hypertechnical pleas raised by the respondents. 1) Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others ( 1996(2) SCC 336 ) 2) D. Rajarathinam Vs. M.T.Corporation LTD. (2003(3) L.L.N. 1098) 3) P.R. Kanniappan Vs. The Management of Metro Transport Corporation Ltd. (W.P.No.29034 of 2003) 4) C. Nagamuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2006(2) M.L.J. 747 ) 5) E. Ramalingam Vs. Director of Collegiate Education ( 2006(3) M.L.J. 641 6) K. Mani Vs. Secy. To Govt. Health & Family Welfare Dept. (2007(3) L.L.N. 473) 12. M.T.Corporation LTD. (2003(3) L.L.N. 1098) 3) P.R. Kanniappan Vs. The Management of Metro Transport Corporation Ltd. (W.P.No.29034 of 2003) 4) C. Nagamuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2006(2) M.L.J. 747 ) 5) E. Ramalingam Vs. Director of Collegiate Education ( 2006(3) M.L.J. 641 6) K. Mani Vs. Secy. To Govt. Health & Family Welfare Dept. (2007(3) L.L.N. 473) 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that he does not press the demand for payment of interest on the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- that is to be reimbursed by the respondent Corporation. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation had submitted that the only reason for the respondent Corporation refusing to reimburse the amount incurred for the cancer treatment given to the petitioner's husband is that Sri Ramachandra Medical Hospital, Chennai, is not shown as an accredited hospital for Oncology treatment. Therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for the reimbursement of the amount, to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, incurred for the treatment of cancer given to the petitioner’s husband. 14. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of the medical expenditure incurred in the course of the treatment of cancer given to the petitioner’s husband, to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’. It is not in dispute that the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’ had come into existence based on the settlement entered into between the workmen and the management of the respondent Corporation, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. 15. It is not in dispute that the `Special Medical Assistance Scheme’ includes treatment of cancer. It is also not in dispute that an amount exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- had been spent on cancer treatment given to the petitioner’s husband. The only reason stated on behalf of the respondent Corporation, for its refusal to reimburse the amount, is that the petitioner’s husband had taken treatment for cancer in Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai, which is not an accredited hospital for Oncology treatment, though it has been listed under other specialities. The only reason stated on behalf of the respondent Corporation, for its refusal to reimburse the amount, is that the petitioner’s husband had taken treatment for cancer in Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai, which is not an accredited hospital for Oncology treatment, though it has been listed under other specialities. Such a hypertechnical plea raised by the respondent Corporation cannot be countenanced. 16. In view of the earlier decisions of this Court cited supra, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent Corporation to reimburse the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, incurred for the treatment of cancer, in respect of the petitioner’s husband, without any interest thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.