Ram Swaroop vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Petitioner is serving as Reader, Grade-I in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, Haryana. His son met with an accident on 25.11.2006 in which he sustained head injuries and his right leg got fractured. Son of the petitioner underwent operation for the head injury and was also treated for the fractured leg and remained admitted at V.K. Neuro Care Hospital, Hisar from 25.11.2006 to 2.12.2006. The petitioner is stated to have incurred expenses of Rs. 48,850/- for the treatment of his son. Accordingly, he submitted his claim for re-imbursement of such amount, vide letter dated 28.2.2007, Annexure P1. Such claim stands rejected vide order dated 30.11.2011, Annexure P10. It is towards impugning such decision of the respondent- Authorities, whereby claim of the petitioner for re-imbursement of the medical expenses incurred towards the treatment of his son has been rejected that the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.

Validity of the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 would have to be examined in the light of instructions of the State Government on the subject issued from time to time.

In the light of memo dated Annexure R1/1, along with the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the earlier instructions dated 24.9.1979 were liberalized and the facility of tree treatment to the spouse of a retired Officer/official of the Haryana Government was made available to the parents, minor children as also minor grandchildren provided such three categories were fully dependent upon the Government Officer/official. Issue was further clarified vide memo dated 9.8.2005, Annexure R1/2, in the light of which unmarried and unemployed children were to be treated to be dependent on their parents, and no age limit as regards dependent children was fixed. Thereafter, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Health Department issued instructions dated 18.10.2007 at Annexure P3 in terms of which a decision was taken that the facility of providing free medical treatment would be admissible to the minor children/minor grand-children even after attaining the age of majority until they become independent subject to the condition that the retired Officer/official furnishes an affidavit to such effect and the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer is completely satisfied with the same.

Placed on record at Annexure P4 is the affidavit dated 18.9.2007 filed by the petitioner which shows the age of his son to be 28 years at the time of accident. Such affidavit further reveals that the son of the petitioner was married and was enrolled as an Advocate in the month of August, 2005.

The instructions dated 6.7.1985, Annexure R1/1, 9.8.2005, Annexure R1/2 and 18.10.2007, Annexure P3 would have to be read together. The decision taken by the State Government to treat unmarried and unemployed children irrespective of their age as dependents on their parents remains unchanged even after the issuance of the subsequent instructions dated 18.10.2007. Conversely, upon a child having been married the same would be a clear pointer towards being treated as independent. Even though the instructions noticed hereinabove governing free medical treatment to the dependents of Officers/officials of the Haryana Government would require a liberal construction, yet they cannot be stretched to a level of absurdity.

Son of the petitioner was a major, a practicing Advocate and was already married as on the date of the accident. These are the conceded facts. No exception, as such, can be taken to the view of the District & Sessions Judge contained in the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for re-imbursement of the medical expenses incurred upon the treatment of his son. No interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed.