Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
t
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 9044 of 2016
Between:-
SHAILENDRA CHOUBEY S/O SHRI RAMESH
CHANDRA CHOUBEY , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: POST ASST. ENGINEER MP
HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD SUB DIVISION DINDORI, DISTT. DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
URBAN ADMINISTRATION DEPT. VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER M.P.
HOUSING BOARD PARYAWARAN BHWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MADHYA
PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD DIVISION BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION MEDICAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SATPURA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DIRECTOR HEALTH SEVICES SATPURA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M.P. HOUSING
INFRASRUCTURE COMPNY HATHITAL JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1, 4 &5)
(BY SHRI YOGESH MOHAN TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.2, 3 & 6)
This petition has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the court
passed the following:
Signature Not
ORDER
SAN Verified This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ commanding the Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2022.04.12 respondents to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for treatment 14:24:10 IST 2 of his mother by setting aside impugned order dated 26/02/2016 (Annexure-P/11) passed by respondent No.4 rejecting petitioner's claim for reimbursement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, Sub Division, Dindori, Distt. Dindori under respondents No.2, 3 and 6. Petitioner's mother is residing with petitioner and she is a retired Assistant Teacher from School Education Department and is getting pension as per Pension Pay Order which depicts that petitioner's mother was getting pension of Rs.3,539/-+D.A. per month in the year 2009.
3. Petitioner's contention is that his mother was suffering from knee ortho problem for which she consulted with the doctors at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur where doctor had advised knee replacement vide Annexure-P/3 and referred her for treatment outside the State. Petitioner had taken his mother for treatment to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon (Haryana) as name of Medanta Hospital is in the approved list of the hospitals recognized by the State Govt. for treatment. He had spent about Rs.6,00,000/- for treatment and another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on TA & DA as per enclosed annexures.
4. Chief Accountant of M.P. Housing Board and Infrastructure Development, Bhopal had written a letter to the Director, Medical Education for sanctioning the expenses made by the petitioner but same have been rejected on the ground that there is no provision in M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 for reimbursement of medical expenses to a retired public servant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 2(d) of M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 defines 'Family'. According to this definition, mother is included in the definition of family, therefore, in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. & others Vs. M.P. Ojha and another, AIR 1998 SC 659 , as mother of the petitioner is dependent on her son, therefore, irrespective of the fact that she herself is getting pension, son is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of Prashant Singh Baghel Vs. The State of M.P. and others decided on 3 04/09/2013 in W.P. No.5477/2008 wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ojha and another (supra) has held that by virtue of a fact that father of the petitioner was getting pension of Rs.414/- per month which by any standard is a paltry sum could not be said that father was not wholly dependent on the son and allowed the writ petition. It is submitted that in light of the said judgments, petitioner is entitled to quashing of impugned order dated 26/02/2016 and reimbursement of medical expenses.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that as per definition of 'Family' provided in Fundamental Rule-9 and the note appended thereto, if income of father or mother from all sources including pension (inclusive temporary increase/relief in pension and pension equivalent to death-cum- retirement gratuity benefits) does not exceed Rs.1275/- per month as substituted vide notification dated 01/05/2000 w.e.f.06/09/1999, then only such parents will be deemed to be wholly dependent upon the government servant. Placing reliance on such provisions, it is submitted that pension of mother of petitioner along with DA etc on the date of operation was more than Rs.10,000/- per months besides earning from interest on gratuity, leave encashment, GPF etc. taking it to over Rs.20,000/- per month, therefore, she was not dependent on the petitioner by any stretch of imagination, hence, judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ojha and another (supra) and thereafter Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Singh Baghel (supra) have limited application to the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be dependent on the petitioner.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and also taking note of the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of Kumar Ram Krishna Vs. College of Vocational Studies and others, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10133 so also the law laid down by Delhi High Court in Union of India and others Vs. Shyama Malhotra and another, 2007 (98 DRJ 367 (D B ), Bombay High Court in the case of Purple Castle Vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on April 3, 2013 (W.P. No.8898/2012, so also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P.Ojha and another (supra), the ratio which is curled out is that monthly pension of Rs.5200/- so too 4 small to warrant an inference that mother was dependent on her husband for treatment of a serious ailment like heart disease. Having regard to the provisions contained in Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Section 4(1), petition was allowed and respondents were directed to settle the dues.
8. Similarly Delhi High Court in the case of Shyama Malhotra & another (supra), has referred two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Dass and others Vs. Kuldip Singh, AIR 1971 Delhi 151 and has held that word 'dependent' is not restricted to mere financially dependency but comprehensive enough to include persons who are dependent on the landlord. Placing reliance on the judgment of M.P. Ojha (supra), it has held that Central Government Health Scheme is a beneficiary and benevolent scheme providing for medical treatment of government servants and family members who are "mainly dependent" on the Government servant and allowed the writ petition.
9. Bombay High Court in the case of Purple Castle (supra) has taken a view that purposive interpretation is giving to the words "wholly dependent", then petitioner's mother who was 85 years old was treated both physically and financially dependent on the petitioner. It was held that family pension was wholly inadequate to meet her medical expenses.
10. In view of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts also this High Court, the ratio curled out is that mother of the petitioner who was about 71 years of age on the date of treatment will be treated to be dependent on the petitioner and will be entitled to the benefit of reimbursement subject to ceiling for such treatment provided in Schedule for Central Government Health Scheme Patients.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 26/02/2016 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to settle claims of the petitioner as per Schedule provided under Central Government Health Scheme only for the purposes of treatment. Petitioner's mother cannot be treated as dependent for the purposes of claiming travelling expenses which shall be borne by petitioner himself.
5(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts