Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.25065 R.2/99-2, dated 29.12.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the medical claim of Rs.30,814/-to the petitioner with interest. 2. The petitioner, underwent a surgery on his left ear on 13.5.1994 at Gem hospital, Palayamkottai. He requested to reimburse the amount of Rs.30,841/-, which is spent towards the said ear surgery and his request was rejected by the first respondent in his Letter No.25065 R.2/99-2, dated 29.12.1999. Two reasons are given for rejecting the request of the petitioner to reimburse the medical expenses. One is that he underwent the surgery in a hospital, which is not recognised by the Government and the other reason is that the ear surgery is not the listed surgery for reimbursement. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No.4875 of 2001 (W.P.No.49376 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order passed by the first respondent in his Letter No.25065 R.2/99-2, dated 29.12.1999. 3. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. 4. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel on either side. 5. The first respondent shall not refuse to reimburse the amount on the ground that the petitioner failed to take treatment in the recognised hospital as per the decision of this Court in K. BALASWAMI V. DIRECTOR OF PENSION, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER ( 2007 (3) MLJ 385 ). Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the above said judgment are extracted hereunder: "Issue relating to this case has already been decided in more than one case. In one case reported in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR SC 1388 : (1996) 2 SCC 336 the Honourable Apex Court had an occasion to decide when treatment was conducted in a hospital in a particular manner, the stand taken by the department that the nature of treatment is not approved as per the Government Order. The Honourable Apex Court has held that it is not for the Department to suggest as to what should be the nature of treatment and it is for the concerned individual in consultation with the medical practitioners to decide upon the nature which depends on the body stature. That was the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the said Judgment. That was the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the said Judgment. In a decision reported in C.Nagamuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 2 MLJ 747 this Court has held, enlisting of hospitals cannot be the policy of the Government while framing such beneficial schemes. In another decision reported in E.Ramalingam v.Director of Collegiate Education 2006 (4) CTC 832 : (2006)3 MLJ 641 this Court had an occasion to deal with the nature of treatment. While the object of the Scheme is to give financial support to the deserving persons, who contributed towards the Health Fund Scheme, naturally it is not open to the authorities to suggest the manner of treatment or to suggest that the treatment should be undergone in a particular hospital alone which can never be the policy of the Government". 6. As far as the ear surgery is concerned, it is admitted in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the Government reimbursed the medical expenses for all treatments pursuant to the Government letter No.16518/Sal.i/94-2, Finance Department, dated 5.5.1994 and to restrict the same, the Government issued a letter No.73364/Salaries/99-1, Finance Department, dated 28.10.1999 to continue to release the financial assistance only for the specialized surgery at the accredited hospital. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder. "It is submitted that in Government Letter No.16518/Sal.l/94-2, Finance Department, dated 5.5.94, the Government clarified "that the accredited institutions listed out in the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.846, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 14.12.93 are hospitals where specialized surgeries/treatment are needed. However, there is no bar in grant of assistance for other treatments had in other recognised and standard private hospitals in our State also, provided the Heads of Departments should verify the genuiness of the treatment/existence of such hospitals etc. and the Heads of Departments will be solely held responsible on the correctness of such sanction". On the basis of the above clarification, the claim applications were flooded and the funds were eroded from the scheme. To control the situation, the Government decided to cancel the clarification issued in the above said Government letter, in Government letter No.73364/Salaries/99-1, Finance Department, dated 28.10.1999 and to continue to release the financial assistance only for the specialized surgery/treatment undergone at the accredited medical institutions listed and notified by the Government from time to time". 7. The petitioner underwent surgery on 13.5.1994. 7. The petitioner underwent surgery on 13.5.1994. The policy of the Government is to reimburse all the treatments, as per the letter of the Government dated 5.5.1994, till it was restricted in their later letter dated 28.10.1999. In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reimburse the amount which has been spent by the petitioner for undergoing the ear surgery within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.