Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 12.03.2012 and after setting aside the same seeks for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to undergo the renal transplantation in the fifth respondent hospital. 2. By the impugned order, the General Manager of the respondent TASMAC informed the petitioner that for the purpose of undergoing renal transplantation, under the provisions of Health Fund, maximum only Rs.1 lakh can be given. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to undergo treatment and thereafter, claim the amount as per the rules. 3. The petitioner contended that he is having salary of only Rs.5000/- per month and it will be difficult for him to mobilize such an huge amount. The Doctors have examined him and found that he is suffering from chronic kidney disease end stage Renal disease. The petitioner was advised to undergo renal transplantation. The approximate cost for the said surgical procedure would be around Rs.5 lakhs. The petitioner is already paying Rs.80/- per month to become the member of the health fund. Since the respondent establishment had obtained exemption from being the member of the ESI, it was prayed that a direction should be given to the respondent TASMAC to provide medical assistance for undergoing treatment. 4. On notice from this court, Mr.S.Muthuraj, the Standing Counsel for TASMAC obtained a counter affidavit, dated 19.04.2012 from the third respondent. In the counter affidavit, in paragraphs 7 to 9, it was averred as follows: "7) ....The petitioner in his representation dated 11.01.2012 has requested TASMAC to give a letter of undertaking to the 5th respondent Hospital agreeing to pay the expenses of the charges for Renal transplantation. Since there is no provision in the scheme to pay for the treatment of the petitioner in advance and the medical expenditure incurred can only be reimbursed after incurring the expenses, a letter No.R2/0434/2012 dated 12.03.2012 was sent to the petitioner. 8.) It is respectfully submitted that the averments in Ground A are denied as false and untenable. Based on the various medical schemes available to both regular employees and temporary employees, TASMAC extends most of the benefits which are available to regular employees to the temporary employees. Recently Government vide G.O.Rt.No.65 dated 9th January, 2008 implemented New Health Insurance Scheme to the regular employees of TASMAC. Based on the various medical schemes available to both regular employees and temporary employees, TASMAC extends most of the benefits which are available to regular employees to the temporary employees. Recently Government vide G.O.Rt.No.65 dated 9th January, 2008 implemented New Health Insurance Scheme to the regular employees of TASMAC. The temporary employees are covered under free treatment in Government hospitals (this is also available to regular employees), Health Fund Scheme (this is not available to regular employees since New Health Insurance Scheme was introduced by Government), Accident / Injury / Disablement Relief Fund Scheme (this is not available to regular employees). It may be seen from the above that, the temporary employees are given equivalent or better medical benefits that the regular employees. Hence there is no discrimination in extending Medical benefits between regular employees and temporary employees. 9.) It is respectfully submitted that the averments in Ground B are denied as false and untenable. The petitioner could have availed Renal Transplantation in reputed Government Hospitals in Chennai without paying any fee / Charges (since TASMAC pays Rs.600/- per annum per employee) instead of proposed to undergo in the 5th respondent Hospital. If the petitioner is insisting on to take the treatment in the 5th respondent hospital he can reimburse his medical expenses bill to the extent of Rs.1.00 lakh on production of bill." 5. The respondents have agreed that the petitioner is covered by the health fund and his is eligible for reimbursement. The contention that the money will be paid after surgical procedure may sound attractive, but the practical difficulty is that the petitioner, who is drawing only Rs.5000/- in the adhoc employment cannot be asked to shell out the money in advance and later claim for reimbursement. Therefore, Mr.K.Balu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the respondent TASMAC gives an undertaking to reimburse the amount, then he can undergo the surgical procedure. The other contention of the respondent TASMAC was that the petitioner should take treatment only from the Government hospital and not in the fifth respondent hospital. The said argument is only sated to be rejected. So long as the fifth respondent hospital also comes under the purview of reimbursement for having undergone the treatment, it is not for the respondent to suggest as to which hospital the petitioner should undergo treatment. 6. The said argument is only sated to be rejected. So long as the fifth respondent hospital also comes under the purview of reimbursement for having undergone the treatment, it is not for the respondent to suggest as to which hospital the petitioner should undergo treatment. 6. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of this court in K.Mani Vs. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai and others reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 34 and after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court had summarised the following propositions laid therein in matters relating to medical reimbursement scheme for government servants:- (i) It is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. (see: 1987 (2) SCC 165 ) (ii) Article 21 of the Constitution of India casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. (See 1989 (4) SCC 286 ). (iii) Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. (See 1996 (2) SCC 549 ). (iv) The right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life. (See 1995 (3) SCC 42 ). (v) Government has constitutional obligation to provide the health facilities. If the Government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a specialised approved hospital...... it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure. (vi) No State of any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its project. (See 1998 (4) SCC 117 ). 7. Therefore, a direction is given to the third respondent to furnish a letter of authorization and undertaking to the fifth respondent hospital so as to enable the petitioner to undergo the treatment and thereafter if the bills are raised by the fifth respondent hospital, to honour the same. The third respondent's annual turnover is more than Rs.16000 crores. They are also responsible for selling liquors to the citizens, which indirectly may cause both liver and renal failure. It is for the third respondent to provide funds for their own employees. They cannot plead resource crunch or hide themselves by quoting any rules. 8. The third respondent's annual turnover is more than Rs.16000 crores. They are also responsible for selling liquors to the citizens, which indirectly may cause both liver and renal failure. It is for the third respondent to provide funds for their own employees. They cannot plead resource crunch or hide themselves by quoting any rules. 8. Therefore, the following directions are issued : (i)The third respondent is directed to furnish a letter of authorization and undertaking addressed to the fifth respondent hospital authorizing the petitioner to undergo renal transplantation and also to undertake the reimbursement of the entire expenses subject to legal scrutiny of the bills raised by the hospital. The authorization letter should be delivered to the fifth respondent after due notice to the petitioner. (ii)The ceiling fixed by the third respondent, i.e., the petitioner can only get Rs.1 lakh is unrealistic. It goes without saying that renal transplantation surgery procedure costs much more. Therefore, the undertaking should not be subjected to any ceiling limit on the surgery to be undertaken by the petitioner. (iii)This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition will stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.