Petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). While in service he was affected with 'Multiple Myeloma' (Cancer) and was undergoing medical treatment at Amala Institute of Medical Science, Thrissur from September 2011 onwards. Now he is continuing treatment at Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. He has to undergo expensive treatments like Chemotherapy, Blood Stem Cell transplantation, which may incur heavy expenditure upto an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- approximately. Grievance of the petitioner is that the medical reimbursements claimed with respect to the period from 1.4.2013 to 30.4.2014 for an amount of Rs.3,75,971/- was rejected through Ext.P6 for the reason that the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.3.2013. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, treatment for the serious disease had started while the petitioner was in service and the expenditure now incurred is only with respect to continuation of the treatment for the very same disease, which is to be followed stage by stage. Petitioner relies on Ext.P9 bi- partite settlement executed with respect to service conditions of employees of the Corporation. He relies on clause XXV (5) of Ext.P9 which says that the expenses for treatment of Cancer, Kidney transplantation, Heart surgery etc. will be reimbursed in full, to the eligible extent. Therefore the petitioner claims reimbursement with respect to the expenses incurred for the continued treatment, even after retirement.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents pointed out that there is no provision in any statutes or Rules governing the conditions of service enabling reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by any employee after his retirement. It is submitted that the claim for medical reimbursement till retirement of the petitioner has already been paid.
4. This court do not find any reason to hold that KSRTC is liable for making payment of medical expenses incurred with respect to treatment undergone after the date of retirement, unless the terms and conditions of service stipulates such liability on the part of the Corporation. Even the conditions stipulated in Ext.P9 , upon which reliance is placed, do not enable payment of any treatment expenses after the retirement of an employee.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case need be considered under special circumstances and the Government should be directed to take an appropriate decision. Since the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as sustainable under any statutory provisions, this court cannot compel either the KSRTC or the Government to consider such claim. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the KSRTC or the Government seeking special consideration in the matter, depending on their policy decisions.
The writ petition is dismissed subject to liberty mentioned as above.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/