{"id":191890,"date":"2006-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006"},"modified":"2014-09-12T03:38:47","modified_gmt":"2014-09-11T22:08:47","slug":"k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 16\/03\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.39201 of 2005\nand \nW.P.M.P.No.42007 of 2005   \n\nK. Subramanian                 ...                     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     Special Commissioner and\n        Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts,\n        Panagal Building,\n        Saidapet,\n        Chennai  15.\n\n2.      The Chief Educational Officer,\n        Office of the Chief Educational Officer,\n        Coimbatore  1.\n\n3.      The Headmistress,\n        T.A.Ramalingam Chettiar Higher Secondary School,\n        Alagesan Road,\n        Coimbatore.                     ...                     Respondents\n\n        This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of\nIndia, praying this Court to issue a writ  of  mandamus  directing  the  first\nrespondent  to  pay the sum of Rs.67,935\/- forthwith as per the sanction order\ndated 19.9.2005 of the second respondent along with interest at  the  rate  of\n18%  per annum from the date of first sanction order dated 5.11.2003 passed by\nthe second respondent. \n\n!For Petitioner         :       Mr.D.Hariparanthaman\n\n^For Respondents        :       Mrs.D.Malarvishi,\n                        Government Advocate\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        In this writ petition, petitioner  seeks  a  direction  to  the  first
\nrespondent to pay the sum of Rs.67,935\/- to him forthwith, as per the sanction
\norder dated 19.9.2005 of the second respondent along with interest at the rate
\nof 18% per annum from the date of first sanction order dated 5.11.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The  brief  facts  of  the  case  that  are  necessary for the
\ndisposal of the writ petition are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     Petitioner is working in the third respondent school, which is
\na fully aided school and getting 100%  grant-in-aid  from  the  Government  of
\nTamil Nadu.    He  was  initially  appointed  as  Secondary  Grade  Teacher on
\n15.3.1973 and was later promoted as Tamil Pandit in the year 199 5.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     The Government of Tamil Nadu framed a  medical  scheme  called
\nthe  ‘Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme’ during the year 1992
\nwith  an  object  to  provide   financial   assistance   to   the   Government
\nservants\/employees  of  the  Aided  Educational Institutions, in case of major
\nailments either for themselves or for their family members.  For that purpose,
\na Fund was created and each employee has to pay a sum of Rs.25\/- per  year  as
\ncontribution towards  the Fund.  Later the rate of contribution was changed to
\nRs.10\/- per month, from January, 19 99.  Petitioner made contributions to  the
\nsaid Fund till his retirement on 31.5.2005.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     While  framing  the  scheme,  the  Government issued a list of
\nailments for which financial assistance can be availed and also issued a  list
\nof  approved  private hospitals from which the employees can take treatment or
\nundergo surgery.  The said lists of ailments and  approved  private  hospitals
\nwere revised  from  time  to time.  The latest Government Order in this regard
\nwas issued in G.O.Ms.No.400 Finance ( Salaries) Department,  dated  29.8.2000.
\nAccording to the petitioner, as per the said Government Order, every employee,
\nwho  becomes  a  member  to  the Fund, is entitled to get advanced specialised
\ntreatment\/surgery in any one of the  accredited  and  approved  hospitals  for
\nundergoing special  treatment for themselves or for their family members.  The
\ndiseases\/ailments for which the advanced\/specialised treatment\/surgery can  be
\nundertaken by the employees are given in Annexure-I and the list of accredited
\nand  approved hospitals are given in Annexure-II to the said Government Order.
\nAs per the said Government Order, the employees can get  financial  assistance
\nto  the  tune  of 75% of the actual expenditure or Rs.1,00,000\/-, whichever is
\nless.  The District\/Regional Heads are empowered  to  sanction  the  financial
\nassistance  to  the  employees  after  verifying  the  nature of the treatment
\nunderwent and the hospital in which they got treatment.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     Petitioner  states  that  his  wife  S.Kalaiselvi  suffered  a
\nmassive  heart  attack  during  April,  2003, and she was admitted into the G.
\nKuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, Coimbatore.   After  clinical  examinations
\nand based on various medical reports, it was found that she was suffering from
\nCongenital Heart  Disease  Class-II Dysphoea on exertion.  She was admitted as
\ninpatient on 21.4.2003 and discharged on 23.4.20 03.  The Doctors advised  her
\nto undergo  immediate  surgery  to save her life.  Hence petitioner’s wife was
\nagain admitted into the same hospital on 27.4.2003 as inpatient  and  she  was
\noperated  for  the Congenital Heart Disease on 29.4.2003 and was discharged on
\n5.5.2003.  Even after discharge, she was advised to take medical and follow-up
\ntreatment regularly and accordingly, she is taking  medicines  and  going  for
\nperiodical check-up till date.\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     According  to  the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,03,059.50 was
\nspent towards surgery, treatment and  medical  expenses  and  the  petitioner,
\nbeing  a  Teacher of the Aided Educational Institution, is entitled to get the
\nFamily Benefit Fund and  applied  for  the  same  on  7.5.2003  to  the  third
\nrespondent in  the  prescribed  form  with all medical reports and bills.  The
\nthird respondent forwarded the application to the second respondent along with
\nhis letter of recommendation for the sanction of financial  assistance.    The
\nsecond  respondent by his letter dated –.9.2003 asked the third respondent to
\nsubmit a certificate from the Doctor specifying as to what kind  of  operation
\nwas performed  to  the  wife  of  the  petitioner.   The Doctor, who performed
\nsurgery to the petitioner’s wife, issued a  certificate  certifying  that  the
\npetitioner’s  wife  was  operated  for  Congenital  Heart  Disease,  which was
\nsubmitted to the second respondent through the third respondent.  Pursuant  to
\nthat, the second respondent, by his order dated 5.11.2003, sanctioned a sum of
\nRs.67,985\/-  being  75%  of  the  actual  expenditure and authorised the first
\nrespondent to issue a cheque\/DD for the said amount, to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        (f)     It is further stated in the affidavit that after  passing  the
\nsanction  order dated 5.11.2003, the second respondent required the petitioner
\nto submit a certificate specifically mentioning as to what kind of open  heart
\nsurgery  was  performed  to  his  wife  as per G.O.No.400 and also to submit a
\ncertificate  as  to  what  was  his  son’s  occupational\/professional  status.
\nPetitioner  once  again obtained a certificate dated 17.3.2004 from the Doctor
\nto the effect that the open heart surgery was  performed  for  correcting  the
\ncongenital  complex  heart  disease  and  submitted  the  same  along  with  a
\ncertificate dated 17.3.2004  stating  that  his  son  was  doing  MBA  through
\ncorrespondence  course  and  he  had no source of income and that his wife was
\nalso not employed.  Based on the  said  certificates,  the  second  respondent
\npassed  a  fresh  sanction  order  dated  30.3.2004  (2nd  sanction order) and
\nforwarded the same to the first respondent for disbursement of the  sanctioned
\namount to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        (g)     Further  case of the petitioner is that in spite of the second
\nsanction order dated 30.3.2004, the first respondent,  instead  of  disbursing
\nthe  sanctioned  amount,  by  his  proceedings  dated  15.5.2004  returned the
\nsanction order dated 30.3.2004 on the  ground  that  the  surgery,  which  the
\npetitioner’s wife underwent was not the one included in G.O.Ms.No.400, Finance
\n(Salaries)  dated 29.8.2000 and hence the claim of the petitioner could not be
\nadmitted.  Hence, the second respondent referred the petitioner’s wife to  the
\nJoint  Director of Health Services, Coimbatore, to ascertain as to whether the
\nsurgery performed to the wife of the petitioner would come within the  purview
\nof  the  diseases\/surgeries\/special  treatment,  mentioned in G.O.No.400 dated
\n29.8.2 000.  Consequently,  petitioner’s  wife  appeared  before  the  Medical
\nBoard,  Government  Head Quarters Hospital, Tiruppur on 28.7.2004 and based on
\nthe report of the Medical Board, the Joint Director of Health Services wrote a
\nletter on 4.8.2004 to the second respondent certifying that  the  petitioner’s
\nwife  had  undergone  Open  Heart  Surgery for Osticum Secundum Artrial Septal
\nDefect at GKNM Hospital, Coimbatore, and the operation performed was a genuine
\none and it was absolutely necessary.  It was also recommended that  the  claim
\nof  the  petitioner  for  financial  assistance  could  be admitted as per the
\nGovernment rules.  Based on the said report dated 4.8.2004  and  in  terms  of
\nG.O.Ms.No.40  0 dated 29.8.2000, the second respondent passed a fresh sanction
\norder dated 25.10.2004 (3rd sanction order) and  forwarded  the  same  to  the
\nfirst respondent for disbursement to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        (h)     Again  the  first respondent returned the sanction order dated
\n25.10.2004 by his letter  dated  27.12.2004  by  referring  the  letter  dated
\n6.12.2004 and stating that the surgery performed to the wife of the petitioner
\nwas not  one of the surgeries approved in the G.O.No.400 dated 29.8.2000.  The
\nthird respondent once again forwarded the proposal  along  with  the  returned
\nclaims  to the second respondent by letter dated 19.1.2005 and also enclosed a
\ncopy of G.O.Ms.No.400 dated 29.8.2000.  Third respondent clearly  pointed  out
\nthat  the  surgery  performed  to the wife of the petitioner was correction of
\ncongenital complex heart disease, which is one of  the  open  heart  surgeries
\napproved in para-1, Schedule-I of Annexure-I to the G.O.No.400 dated 29.8.2000
\nand  therefore  petitioner  is entitled to get the financial assistance as per
\nthe said Government Order.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)     The second respondent, after receipt of the  renewed  proposal
\nfrom  the  third  respondent,  made  a request to the Director of Medicine and
\nRural Health Services, Chennai-6, enclosing all the medical  certificates,  to
\nascertain  as  to  whether  the  petitioner  is  eligible to get the financial
\nassistance as per G.O.No.400 dated 29.8.2000.  The Director  of  Medicine  and
\nRural  Health  Services  referred  the matter to the Medical Board, Government
\nGeneral Hospital, Chennai-3 and obtained a  report  dated  2.6.2005  from  the
\nMedical Board.   On the basis of the said report, the Director of Medicine and
\nRural Health Services wrote a letter on 27.6.2005 to  the  second  respondent,
\nwherein it is clearly certified that,\n<\/p>\n
        (i)     the surgery performed was in emergency,<\/p>\n
        (ii)    the treatment undergone by the wife of the petitioner is
\n                covered under G.O.No.400 dated 29.8.2000, and<\/p>\n
        (iii)   the Hospital where petitioner’s wife got treatment is
\n                also one of the hospitals approved in G.O.No.400
\n                dated 29.8.2005.\n<\/p>\n
Again  the  second  respondent  issued the sanction order dated 19.9.2005 (4th
\nsanction order) for a sum of Rs.67,935\/- as financial assistance  towards  the
\nexpenditure  incurred  by  the  petitioner for giving special treatment to the
\npetitioner’s wife.  The  said  sanction  order  was  forwarded  to  the  first
\nrespondent  along  with  a  covering  letter  dated  1  9.9.2005 enclosing the
\nresports\/certificates issued by,\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     the Doctor of GKNM Hospital,<\/p>\n
        (b)     the letter sent by the Joint Director of Health Services,
\n                Tiruppur,<\/p>\n
        (c)     the medical report dated 25.6.2005 issued by the
\n                Medical Board, Government General Hospital,
\n                Chennai-3, and<\/p>\n
        (d)     the letter dated 27.6.2005 from the Director of
\n                Medicine and Rural Health Services, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
In spite of the said orders and reports,  according  to  the  petitioner,  the
\nfirst  respondent  has  not  disbursed  the sanctioned financial assistance of
\nRs.67,935\/- and therefore the petitioner has filed the present  writ  petition
\nfor the above referred prayer along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum
\nfrom the date of first sanction order dated 5.11.2003 and also exemplery cost.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      When the writ petition came up for admission on 6.12.2005, the
\nlearned Government Advocate took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and sought two
\nweeks time  for  getting  instructions.    Hence the matter was directed to be
\nposted after two weeks in the motion list.  Again, when the matter was  listed
\non  7.3.2006,  at  the  request  of  learned Government Advocate, the case was
\nadjourned to  13.3.2006,  on  which  date,  the  learned  Government  Advocate
\nappearing  for  the respondents submitted her arguments based on the available
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated  the  points
\nurged  in  the affidavit and argued that G.O.Ms.No.400 dated 29.8.2000 clearly
\ncovers the disease for which the petitioner’s wife underwent surgery  and  the
\nhospital  in  which  petitioner’s  wife underwent surgery is an accredited and
\napproved hospital.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents
\nsubmitted that only because of the doubts with regard to the applicability  of
\nG.O.Ms.No.400  dated  29.8.2000  to the petitioner’s case, repeated objections
\nwere raised by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      I have considered the  rival  submissions  of  the  respective
\ncounsels.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      For proper appreciation of the issue involved, it is useful to
\nextract the G.O.Ms.No.400 dated 29.8.2000, which reads as under, <\/p>\n
“GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
\nABSTRACT
\nTamil  Nadu  Government  Employees Health Fund Scheme, 1991  Streamlining and
\napproval of registered private hospitals under the TNGEHFS  Classification of
\nspecialised advanced  surgeries\/treatment  under  the  broad  based  groups
\napproved  orders issued.\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————–<\/p>\n
\nFINANCE (SALARIES) DEPARTMENT        \n\nG.O.Ms.No.400           Dated 29th August 2000,\n                                Aavani, 14 Vikkirama,\n                                Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2031\n                                Read:\n<\/pre>\n
1.      G.O.Ms.No.18, Finance (All) Department, dated 9.1.92\n<\/p>\n
2.      G.O.Ms.No.91 Finance (Sal) Department,  dated 7.2.95\n<\/p>\n
3.      G.O.Ms.No.817 Finance (Sal) Department, dated 20.10.95\n<\/p>\n
4.      G.O.Ms.No.340 Finance (Sal) Department, dated 14.7.98\n<\/p>\n
5.      G.O.Ms.No.846 Finance (Sal) Department, dated 14.12.93\n<\/p>\n
6.      G.O.Ms.No.460 Finance (Sal) Department, dated 19.6.95\n<\/p>\n
7.      G.O.Ms.No.817 Finance (Sal) Department, dated 20.10.95\n<\/p>\n
8.      Government Letter No.6289 Finance (Sal) Department\/96, dated 05.0 3.96\n<\/p>\n
9.      Government Letter No.52006 Finance (Sal)        Department\/95-7, dated
\n1 8.06.99\n<\/p>\n
10.     Government Letter No.14186, Finance (Sal)       Department\/96-3, dated
\n29.09.96\n<\/p>\n
11.     Government Letter No.25666 Finance (Sal)        Department\/99-1, dated
\n16.04.99.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        Read also:-\n<\/p>\n
12.     G.O.Ms.No.532 Finance (Sal) Department, dated 10.12.99
\n***
\nORDER:-\n<\/p>\n
        The  Government  in their reference first read above had constituted a
\nfund called “Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund” to provide a measure
\nof relief to Government Employee, if they  are  affected  by  major  ailments.
\nAccordingly, the Government in their references first to fourth read above had
\nissued  orders  approving certain specialised advanced surgeries\/treatment and
\nin their references fifth to eleventh read above had  issued  order  approving
\ncertain  private  hospitals  from  where  Government  employee can undergo the
\nspecialised advanced surgeries\/treatment and avail  medical  assistance  under
\nthis scheme.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      Of  late,  certain  management  of  the  private hospitals had
\nrequested the Government to include them in the approved list so as to  enable
\nthe  Government  employees  and  their  family  members to undergo specialised
\nadvanced surgeries\/treatment if they are affected by major ailments.  As there
\nwere no uniform norms prescribed for inclusion of  private  hospitals  in  the
\nlist  of  approved  hospitals,  the Government in their reference twelfth read
\nabove had issued order prescribing certain norms for streamlining  the  system
\nof  approving  the  private  hospitals  based  on  their specialisation in the
\nspecified diseases under  the  Tamil  Nadu  Government  Employee  Health  Fund
\nScheme.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      Accordingly, Director of Medical Education\/Director of Medical
\nand Rural Health Services have inspected the private hospitals who had applied
\nfor accreditation.  The Director of Medical Education\/ Director of Medical and
\nRural  Health  Services  after inspecting the private hospitals concerned have
\nsubmitted their reports to Government with their  recommendations  to  include
\nthem in the accredited list.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The    Government,    after   careful   examination   on   the
\nrecommendations of the Director of Medical Education\/Director of  Medical  and
\nRural Health Services, pass the following orders:-\n<\/p>\n
1)      the specialised advanced surgery\/treatment      which   were  approved
\nearlier are now classified under the broad based groups as      indicated   in
\nthe Annexure 1 to this order.\n<\/p>\n
2)      the private hospitals which were accredited     already     in     the
\nreference fifth to eleventh     read above have ceased to be in the
\napproved list forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
3)      the revised accredited list of hospitals and    the specialisation for
\nwhich the hospitals     are approved is indicated in the Annexure-II    to
\nthis order.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      There  shall  be  no  change  in  other  existing  rules   and
\nconditions.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The  sanctioning  authorities  empowered to sanction financial
\nassistance under this scheme are requested to indicate the classifications  of
\nthe diseases in their proceedings\/orders scrupulously.\n<\/p>\n
(By Order of the Governor)<\/p>\n
                                        P.V.RAJARAMAN
\n                        SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT  <\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
All Secretaries to Government, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
All Departments of Secretariat (OP), Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
The Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai-9.
\nAll Heads of Departments.\n<\/p>\n
All District Collectors.\n<\/p>\n
The Accountant General (A&E), Chennai-18.\n<\/p>\n
The Accountant General (Audit), Chennai-35.\n<\/p>\n
All Chief Educational Officers.\n<\/p>\n
ANNEXURE  I
\nSCHEDULE  I
\nLIST OF DISEASES CLASSIFIED UNDER THE BROAD BASED SPECIALITIES:\n<\/p>\n
I.      CARDIOLOGY AND CARDIO THORACIC SURGERY:-          \n\n1.      Open heart surgery including\n        a) Caronary By-pass Surgery (CABG)\n        b) Valve replacement\n        c) Correction of Congenital Complex heart               diseases.\n\nII.     ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY:-    \n\n\n        1.  Total Hip replacement\n        2.  Total Knee replacement.\n\nIII.    NEPHROLOGY\/UROLOGY:-     \n\n        a) Renal transplantation.\n        b) Lithotripsy\n\nIV.     ONCOLOGY:-  \n\n        1.  Surgical Management of Malignancy           (Cancer),\n        2.  Laser or radiation treatment of cancer.\n\nV.      NEUROLOGY:-  \n\n        1.  Emergency life saving operation on brain    and spinal cord.\n\n        2.  Advanced specialised operation on Brain\n        and spinal cord such as cerebrovascular surgery    (    Ancurysm   and\nArteriovenoces          Malformation), skull base surgery, deep         seated\ntumour of brain, synotactic             surgery.\n\n        3.  Surgery for Intractable Epilepsy.\n\nVI.     OPHTHALMOLOGY:-    \n\n        1.  Simple surgery\n        a) any cataract surgery with or without         Intra   Ocular    Lens\n(IOL)\n        b) Glaucoma surgery\n\n        2.  Specialised Surgery\n        a) Surgery for detachment of Retina.\n        b) Vitrectomy\n        c) Keratoplasty (Corneal Grafting)\n        d) Laser treatment, Krypton Laser, Dye\n                Laser, Argon Laser, Photo\n                Coagulation.\n        e) Liner Accelarator Therapy (for senile\n                Macular Degenaration Tumour)\n\nVII.    VASCULAR SURGERY:-    \n        Amputation of legs.\n\n\/ TRUE COPY \/  \n\nSECTION OFFICER\"    \n\n<\/pre>\n
In  Annexure-II  to  the  said Government Order, the list of private hospitals
\nnumbering 74, accredited against their speciality, are given and in  Sl.No.27,
\nthe  name  of  G.Kupusamy  Naidu  Memorial Hospital, Nethaji Road, Coimbatore,
\nfinds a place for the specialities in the fields of Cardiology  and  Oncology.
\nThus,  it  is manifestly clear that the petitioner’s wife underwent surgery in
\nthe Government approved private hospital as per Annexure-II  to  G.O.Ms.No.400
\ndated  29.8.2000, for which the family benefit fund conferred under the scheme
\nis bound to be extended to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      As  rightly  contended  by  the  learned   counsel   for   the
\npetitioner,  the second respondent, who is the competent authority, sanctioned
\nthe amount of Rs.67,935\/- and all the queries raised by the  first  respondent
\non  all  four  occasions were fully and satisfactorily explained by the second
\nrespondent.  But in spite of the said clarifications coupled with  the  report
\nsubmitted  by the Director of Medicine and Rural Health Services, Chennai, the
\nfirst respondent has not chosen to disburse the sanctioned amount  till  date.
\nThis  shows  the  manner  in which the claim of a deserving person is unjustly
\nprolonged and delayed and the same is to be treated as vexatious.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The Government has formulated a scheme  to  give  the  medical
\nbenefit  to  the  deserving persons and in clear and categorical terms, listed
\nthe diseases, for which the medical reimbursement is permissible.    To  avail
\nthe  said benefit, the Government also listed the authorised private hospitals
\nin which claimants are entitled to undergo treatment\/surgery.  When  both  the
\nconditions  having  been  satisfied  in  the  case  of  petitioner herein, the
\nunnecessary repeated queries raised by the first respondent,  is  unauthorised
\nand uncalled for.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     The  novel scheme having been framed by the Government and the
\npetitioner having paid his contribution to get the benefit under  the  scheme,
\ndenial  of  the  said  benefit  in  spite  of the sanction order issued by the
\ncompetent authority\/second respondent as early as on 5.11.20  03,  is  totally
\nerroneous and  illegal.    Schemes  are  introduced neither for the purpose of
\nadding feathers to the cap of the Government nor for the sake of adding to the
\nrecords of achievements.  The schemes are intended for helping  the  deserving
\npersons.   Therefore,  it is a disgrace on the part of the first respondent in
\ndelaying disbursement of the sanctioned amount to the petitioner for about  2=
\nyears in spite of the sanction order.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     There  is no justification on the part of the first respondent
\nto delay the payment as the first respondent is also duty bound to  look  into
\nthe  Government  Order,  particularly  when it was marked to be served on him.
\nHere in this case, four times, i.e., on 5.11.2003, 30.3.2004,  25.10.2004  and
\n19.9.2005,  the  competent  authority clarified the doubts and again and again
\nsanctioned the amount.  Therefore, the first respondent’s action is  not  only
\narbitrary, but also causes great prejudice to the petitioner and therefore for
\nthe said wilful delay, the first respondent is bound to pay interest, at least
\nat the  rate  of  9%  per  annum.  Petitioner is therefore entitled to get the
\nsanctioned amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, payable from  the
\ndate of first order of sanction i.e., from 5.11.2003 till the date of payment.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     The   first   respondent   is  directed  to  pay  the  sum  of
\nRs.67,935\/-, as per the sanction order dated 19.9.2005 with  interest  at  the
\nrate  of 9% per annum from 5.11.2003 till the date of payment, within a period
\nof two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  It  is  open  to
\nthe   Government  to  realise  the  amount  paid  towards  interest  from  the
\nOfficer\/Officers, responsible for the delay in disbursement of the  sanctioned
\namount to the petitioner, so that the Government need not suffer any financial
\nloss due to the indifferent attitude of the Officer\/Officers concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ  petition  is  allowed  with the above directions.  No costs.
\nConnected WPMP NO.42007 of 2005 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.      The Special Commissioner and
\n        Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts,
\n        Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 15.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The Chief Educational Officer,
\n        Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
\n        Coimbatore 1.\n<\/p>\n
3.      The Headmistress,
\n        T.A.Ramalingam Chettiar Higher Secondary School,
\n        Alagesan Road,  Coimbatore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16\/03\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.39201 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.42007 of 2005 K. Subramanian … Petitioner -Vs- 1. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Panagal Building, Saidapet, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-11T22:08:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-11T22:08:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3084,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006\",\"name\":\"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-11T22:08:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-11T22:08:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-11T22:08:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006"},"wordCount":3084,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006","name":"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-11T22:08:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramanian-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-16-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Subramanian vs Special Commissioner And on 16 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191890","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}