Facts
The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 for payment of the alleged balance of ₹4,31,544 towards COVID-19 treatment expenses.
Source reference: p.1He claimed to have incurred ₹6,44,544 and received ₹2,13,000, contending that G.O.Ms.No.280, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 24 June 2020, entitled him to reimbursement up to a ceiling of ₹4,00,000.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3The State respondents maintained that the eligible amount under the Government Order had already been paid by proceedings dated 13 July 2022.
Source reference: p.3, para. 4The petitioner stated that he had been hospitalised for ten days.
Source reference: p.6, para. 8Issues
Whether the ₹4,00,000 ceiling in G.O.Ms.No.280 entitled the petitioner to reimbursement of the claimed balance for his COVID-19 treatment.
Source reference: pp.2–3, paras. 3–4; p.6, para. 8Whether, on the applicable COVID-19 reimbursement rates and the material before it, any further amount remained payable to the petitioner.
Source reference: pp.5–6, paras. 7–8Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate public-law relief.
Source reference: no citationUnder G.O.Ms.No.280, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 24 June 2020, COVID-19 reimbursement was governed by specified package and per-day rates; the ₹4,00,000 ceiling under Clause 4(i)(a) concerned critical-care package rates, while additional COVID-19 reimbursement provisions were to be read with the other relevant clauses, including Clauses 4(i)(b) and 4(ii).
Source reference: pp.4–5, paras. 6–9The Court relied on K. Thaniyarasu v. Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, 2026 MHC 4216, which adopted that interpretation.
Source reference: pp.3–5, para. 6The judgment also referred to G.O.Ms.No.240, Health and Family Welfare (EAPI-I) Department, dated 5 June 2020, as the source of the existing critical-care package rates.
Source reference: p.5, para. 9Reasoning
Applying the interpretation in K. Thaniyarasu, the Court rejected the petitioner’s premise that the ₹4,00,000 ceiling operated as a general reimbursement entitlement for his COVID-19 expenses.
Source reference: pp.5–6, paras. 7–8It treated COVID-19 reimbursement as subject to the applicable per-day rates and relevant treatment category; for non-critical COVID-19 treatment, the stated rates were ₹9,500 per day for A1/A2 hospitals, with pharmacy charges, and ₹7,500 per day for A3–A6 hospitals, with pharmacy charges.
Source reference: pp.5–6, paras. 7–8The State’s counter stated that the eligible amount had already been settled, and the Court found no basis on the record to conclude that a further balance was due.
Source reference: p.6, paras. 8–9Holding
The Court held that the petitioner had not established entitlement to the claimed balance under G.O.Ms.No.280 and found no merit in the writ petition.
The petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.6, para. 9Original Court PDF
C.PARTHIBANvsTHE STATE OF TAMILNADU
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
