The Director General Of Police, v. M.Ravi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP No. 10083 of 2026
1. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Commissioner Department of Treasuries and Accounts, Panagal Building, No. 1, Jennis Road, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
3. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.
4. The Additional Commissioner of Police Headquarter and Traffic, Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur, Chennia-600 119.
..Appellant(s) Vs M.Ravi No. 8B, Block, New Police Quarters, Kutchry Road, Mylopore, Chennai-04.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal filed under clause 15 of letters patent to set aside the order dated 12.11.2024 made in WP No.32758 of 2024 and allow the above Writ Appeal. For Appellant(s):
Mr.S.Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent(s):
Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SENTHILKUMAR J.) This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.32758 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024. 2.The writ petitioner challenged the original impugned order passed by the 3rd appellant in Na.Ka.No.R1/113/20871/2022 dated 01.10.2024, and sought a direction to the 4th Appellant to reimburse a sum of Rs.2,44,809/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Nine Only) for the surgery undergone by his mother with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, before the Writ Court.
3.The case of the writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that he was working as a Head Constable in T15 Kannagi Nagar Traffic Police Station, Tambaram Commissionerate. Initially, he was a member of the New Health Insurance Scheme, thereafter the same was cancelled. Subsequently, he became a member of Tamil Nadu Benevolent Fund Scheme and deductions were made from his salary by the 3rd appellant. His mother underwent surgery in left knee, and the writ petitioner furnished all the relevant documents before the 4th appellant and claimed reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him to the tune of Rs.2,44,809/-, but the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24847 of 2024, seeking a direction to the 3rd appellant to grant reimbursement. Pending W.P.No.24847 of 2024, the original impugned order in Na.Ka.No.R1/113/20871/2022 dated 01.10.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, was passed. Aggrieved against the same, the writ petitioner has approached the Writ Court.
4.The Writ Court after taking into consideration of the facts and the definition of 'family members' mentioned in clause 4 of the Annexure - I to G.O.(MS). No.202 dated 30.06.2016, that the family members are entitled to the medical claim, and taking into consideration order passed by this Court in a writ
petition filed by the similarly placed persons in W.P.No.35621 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020, wherein this Court had observed as follows: "7.This Court while dealing with an identical facts of the case in W.P.No.35621 of 2019 has held as under:- "8.The object of the Health Insurance scheme 2016 is to help the employee to tide over the crisis faced by the employee due to a sudden and emergent medical emergency. The Government had thought it fit to appoint the United India Insurance Company Limited (the fifth respondent herein) for the implementation of the scheme and for the disbursement of the medical reimbursement. The scheme itself contemplates the list of hospitals where the employee and his family members can undergo treatment. It becomes important to take note of Annexure~I in G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 30.06.2016.
Under clause 4 of the Annexure, "Family members" are defined. Clause 4(iii) states that the parents of the employee will also be covered only till the employee remains unmarried. The said Clause, if it is read literally, on the face of it, sounds illegal and illogical. The parents f an employee will not cease to be parents after the marriage of the employee.
after marriage, this Court does not expect the Government to give a similar treatment for the parents of employees, who get married. This Clause cannot be read in isolation and it cannot be given a literal meaning, since it will end up with disturbing consequences. The only way to read this Clause is that the parents will continue to be treated as family members till they continue to be the dependants of the Government employee. If this Clause is not assigned this meaning, the poor parents will be left in lurch during the evening of their life and more particularly, considering the cost of medical care that is prevailing at present. Therefore, the real purport of this clause is that the parents of the employee must continue to be the dependants of the employee and in which case they will also fall within the definition of "Family members". "
5.Relying upon the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.35621 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020, the Writ Court has disposed the Writ Petition with the following direction:
"8.Therefore, in view of the facts of the case and the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.35621 of 2019 while dealing with the identical facts of the case, this Court directs the respondents to
verify the claim made by the petitioner is only with regard to his parents, if so, consider the claim made by the petitioner based on the earlier decision and pass orders within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants contended that the order passed by the Writ Court is not in accordance with law and the Writ Court has not considered the definition of the "family members" before allowing the Writ Petition. 7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides. 8.It is to be noted that the Writ Court has passed the order after taking into consideration an identical order passed by this Court in W.P.No.35621 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020, which order was never challenged and the said order became final. Apart from that the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that as against an identical case, a division bench of this Court in W.A.No.3290 of 2024 dated 23.09.2025, had dismissed the said Writ Appeal. 9.Following the earlier order passed by this Court in W.A.No.3290 of
2024 dated 23.09.2025, the present Writ Appeal is also dismissed as devoid of merits. While disposing the writ petition in W.P.No.32758 of 2024 on 12.11.2024, the Writ Court has directed the Appellants to consider the claim made by the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
10.Therefore, the present Writ Appeal is dismissed, with a direction to the Appellants to disburse the medical claim made by the writ petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (R.S.K.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 20-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sai
R.SURESH KUMAR J.
and N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
sai and CMP No.10083 of 2026 20-04-2026