Include parents of married government servants in health scheme, Madras HC directs State
The Chief Secretary was directed to take a decision within three months and posted the matter to November for compliance
Madras High Court
CHENNAI: The parents of married government employees should be included within the definition or purview of ‘family’ for the purpose of extending the benefits of the State health insurance scheme, the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government.
Issuing the order while disposing of the petition moved by a police constable, Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that the High Court had held on more than one occasion that it was highly arbitrary and illegal to exclude parents from the purview of the family after a government servant gets married.
The judge also directed the State government to make appropriate changes to the health insurance scheme so as to include the parents of employees within the definition or purview of the family for the purpose of extending the benefits of the scheme, if such parents are dependent on the employee concerned.
After directing the Chief Secretary to take a decision in this regard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months, the court posted the matter on November 4 for compliance of the order.
The petitioner S Felixraj, a police constable in Jeyamkondam police station in Ariyalur district, moved the petition to direct the State government to reimburse the medical expenses that he spent for his father's treatment.
The petitioner submitted that he enrolled in the new health insurance scheme, 2016, which was made compulsory for all government servants in Tamil Nadu. His father father Susai met with a road accident and sustained a head injury. For his treatment, he spent Rs 6.54 lakh, Felixraj submitted.
Later, he made a claim for reimbursement of the amount under the health Insurance scheme. However, the claim was rejected by the Ariyalur Superintendent of Police, pointing out that the parents of a married government employee were excluded from the purview of family under the scheme guidelines. Objecting to this, the petitioner moved the petition seeking relief.
