AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to orders dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-4 and P-5) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement of his parents, was declined. Further petitioner has challenge instructions No. 2/144/07-1HBIII dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that vide impugned orders dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-4 and P-5), the claim of medical reimbursement of the parents of the petitioner, is wrongly rejected by relying upon instructions dated 14.12.2007, which are placed on record as Annexure P-1. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the claim of the petitioner is rightly rejected, in view of instructions dated 14.12.2007. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.
A perusal of the file shows that father of the petitioner, who is senior citizen and dependent upon the petitioner was admitted in Garg Hospital, Gas Agency Road, Hansi w.e.f 02.06.2024 to 06.06.2024 as he suffered fracture neck of femur (left side) and mother of the petitioner was admitted in Anand Orthopaedic Centre, Kurukshetra w.e.f 01.12.2024 to 07.12.2024 suffered fracture intertrochanteric femur (left). The petitioner moved an application seeking medical reimbursement of his parents amounting to Rs.1,10,960 and Rs.1,03,590/- being dependent upon him but the same was rejected on the basis of instructions No. 2/144/07-1HBIII dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-1).
A perusal of the impugned order as well as written statement filed by the respondents shows that the only reason for declining the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement of his parents is instruction No. 2/144/07-1HBIII dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-1).
Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the instruction No. 2/144/07-1HBIII dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-1). The same reads as under:-
"No. 2/144/07-1HBIII
From
The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana
To
1.All Head of Departments, Commissioners Ambala, Rohtak, Gurgaon & Hisar Divisions.
2.All Deputy Commissioners (Civil) and All SDOS
3.The Registrar Punjab and Haryana, High Court Chandigarh.
Subject: Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, Dependents on State Govt. Employee, Wives/Sisters.
Sir,
I am directed to invite your kind attention towards Haryana Govt. letter No. 1069-USFP-Cell-69 dated 26.2.1969 on the subject cited above and to say that the condition of dependency or wholly dependent in case of spouse was dispensed with and these instructions were modified vide Haryana Government letter No. 4197-USFP-Cell70/24708, dated 11th September, 1970 to this extent that the State Government employees are entitled to claim reimbursement of medical expenses of spouse of income. irrespective of his/her source Subsequently some confusion arose in this matter on the issuance of letter dated 29.8.85 (that ceiling of the income i.e. Rs.750/- per month is also applicable for spouse) though the letter-dated 11.9.1970 is still in operation. However, now, it is again clarified that letter dated 11.9.70 is still in operation and State Govt. employees eligible to claim medical reimbursement of spouse irrespective of his/her source of income.
2.State Govt. has also decided to include fully dependent sisters residing with the Govt. Employees in the definition of family for the purpose of medical reimbursement.
3.It has also been decided to increase the ceiling of income of dependents from Rs.750/- to Rs.3500/- per month for the purpose of medical reimbursement.
4.The decision mentioned in Para No. 2 and 3 above will be affected with immediate effect.
5.This issues with the concurrence of Finance Department conveyed vide their U.O. No. 2383, 2958/5FDII/2007, 22.11.07.
Yours faithfully.
Sd/-
Under Secretary Health for Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health Department.
No. 2/144/07-1 HBIII
Dated Chandigarh, the 14-12-2007
A copy is forwarded to the Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
Under Secretary Health for Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health Department.”
A bare perusal of the above referred to instructions shows that the same is applicable to Dependents of State Government Employee, Wives/Sisters. Thus, the instructions refer to only spouse/sisters and not to the parents.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. M.P. Ojha, 1998 (1) SCT 333 held that father of the government servant who is wholly dependent upon his son, is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on his treatment. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
“12.The expression "wholly dependent is not a term of art. It has to be given its due meaning with reference to the Rules in which it appears. We need not make any attempt to define the expression "wholly dependant to be applicable to all cases in all circumstances. We also need not look into other provisions of law where such expression is defined. That would likely to lead to results which the relevant Rules would not have contemplated. The expression "wholly dependent" has to be understood in the context in which it is used keeping in view the object of the particular Rules where it is contained. We cannot curtail the meaning of "wholly dependent" by reading into this the definition as given in SR 8 which has been reproduced above. Further, the expression "wholly dependent as appearing in the definition of family as given in Medical Rules cannot be confined to mere financial dependence. Ordinarily dependence means financial dependence but for a member of family it would mean other support, may be physical, as well. To be "wholly dependent" would therefore include both financial and physical dependence. If support required is physical and a member of the family is otherwise financially sound he may not necessarily be wholly dependent. Here the father was 70 years of age and was sick and it could not be said that he was not wholly dependent on his son. Son has to look after him in his old age. Even otherwise by getting a pension of Rs. 414/- per month which by any standard is a paltry amount it could not be said that the father was not "wholly dependent" on his son. That the father had a separate capacity of being a retired Government servant is immaterial if his case falls within the Medical Rules being a member of the family of his son and wholly dependent on him. A flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying the Rules in a case like the present one. There is no dispute that the son took his father to Bombay for treatment for his serious ailment after getting due permission from the competent authority. It was submitted before us that the father being a retired Government servant could himself get sanction for treatment outside the State as a special case from the competent authority. It is not necessary for us to look into this aspect of the matter as we are satisfied that under the relevant Medical Rules, the father was member of the family of his son and was wholly dependent on him and the 2nd respondent was thus fully entitled to reimbursement for the expenses incurred on the treatment of his father and other travelling expenses.”
Since, in the present case, the reason for declining the claim of the petitioner is instructions No. 2/144/07-1HBIII dated 14.12.2007 which relates to wives/sisters of employee and would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the matter is remanded to respondent No. 3-District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, Haryana, to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court referred to above and policy as is applicable to the parents of the employees.
Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of.