Punjab-Haryana High Court
Samir Anand vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 3 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1999P&H106, AIR 1999 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 106, (1999) 1 SCT 585
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. Refusal of the Government in reimbursing to petitioner tuition fee admissible in terms of Government instructions Annex-lire P-2 on accounts of demise of his mother who was working as Lecturer in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Amritsar on account of breast cancer has constrained the petitioner to rake up the issue of such tuition fee. In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, thus, the claim of the petitioner is fur reimbursement of tuition fee in terms of Government instructions Annexure P-2.
2. Petitioner was admitted in MBBS course on merits in Government Medical College, Amritsar. His mother who was working as Lecturer in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Amritsar expired on 9-5-1994 on account of breast cancer. The petitioner being dependent on his deceased mother applied for reimbursement of tuition fee in terms of Government instructions (Annexure P-2) to Director Public Instructions (School), Punjab through respondent No. 4 District Education Officer, Amrilsar. The Director Public Instructions, respondent No. 2 forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 5 who without taking any action in the matter returned the case. On the request made by the petitioner, Principal Medical College Amritsar vide his letter dated 19-2-1997 forwarded the case of the petitioner for reimbursing the tuition fee to respondent No. 2 and requested for early disbursement thereof. Petitioner sent a reminder to respondent No. 2 on 14-8-1997 but when his representation and the reminders brought no tangible results, the present petition for the aforesaid relief was filed.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents I, 2 and 4, 3 and 5 have entered defence and filed separate written statements. The claim of the petitioner has been opposed primarily and, in fact, on the only ground that petitioner was not wholly dependent upon his mother inasmuch as in his admission form the petitioner had mentioned that this father Kundan Lal Anand was working as College teacher. The fact that mother of the petitioner was working as Lecturer with respondent No. 2and expired while in service has not been denied.
4. The petitioner has filed replication to the written statements filed on behalf of the respondents. Therein it has been pleaded that his father retired on 31-1-1994 from D.A.V. College, Amritsar without any pension.
5. Instructions Annexure P-2 the sole reliance of the petitioner for the desired relief read thus :--
Subject: Grant of free education facilities to the children of deceased Government employees.
1 am directed to address you on the subject cited above and to say that the Punjab Government have had under consideration for some time the question of allowing free educational facilities to the children of the deceased Government employees. It has now been decided to allow free educational facilities to the unmarried children of all Government employees who die while in service, subject to the following conditions :--
(i) The benefit of free education shall be allowed up to Degree courses (including Professional courses) provided the children get admission in the said courses on merit and pass the examination held from time to time.
(ii) Tuition fee at the rate as admissible in Government institutionsonly shall be reimbursed.
(iii) The benefit will be admissible from the date of death of the Government employee concerned to his children who are actually dependent upon their guardian.
2. These orders shall have effect from the 1st June, 1970.
6. The petitioner is doing a professional degree course and had got admission in the said course on merits has not been denied. The claim of the petitioner is also not for anything more than the fee at the rate as admissible in the Government institutions. The only discordant view as expressed by Mr. Parminder Singh, the learned AAG, Punjab while opposing the claim of the petitioner is that petitioner was not only dependent upon his mother which is one of the conditions for eligibility as mentioned in instructions Annexure P-2.
7. After hearing the learned counsel representing the parties and going through the records of the case and in particular Annexure P-2, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner has been denied on wholly untenable grounds. The mother of the petitioner died on 9-5-1994 on account of breast cancer and the father of petitioner Kundan Lal retired on 31-1-1994 from D.A.V. College. At the time when mother of the petitioner died, the father of the petitioner was not in a position to support him and it can well be said that the petitioner was dependent upon his mother at the relevant time. The words in Clause (iii) of Annexure P-2, "who are actually dependent upon their guardian" cannot be interpreted to mean that a student is not dependent upon one of his parents who has died inasmuch as his other parent is alive. Children of working spouse are dependent upon both of them. In the present economic scenario when prices of even essential commodities have gone sky rocketing, more often than not both the husband and wife have to work to provide them and their children both ends meet, If one is even to go by the facts of the present case, it would transpire that whereas mother of the petitioner was a Lecturer in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, the father of the petitioner was a Lecturer in D.A.V. College, Amritsar, who, as mentioned above, retired on 31-1-1994 and is not earning any pension. If perhaps the parents of the petitioner were not to serve, it may have been well nigh difficult if not impossible for them to have admitted petitioner in a professional course. The tuition fee per year is stated to be Rs. 8500/-. Worked out on the basis of per month, it comes to rupees little more than seven hundred. That could not only be the expenses that the petitioner had to incur while he was in MBBS professional course. Besides tuition fee a student who is undergoing professional course has to spend on a number of items and if expenses were to work out something like Rs. 14-1500, one of the parents of the petitioner may not have been able to support him. Can it be said in these circumstances that the petitioner was dependent on both his parents? In our view, the answer to this question has to be returned in favour of the petitioner.
8. We have incidently gone into this question but as mentioned above, as a matter of fact, at the time when mother of the petitioner died, father of the petitioner had since already retired and was not getting any pension. The petitioner, in fact, was then entirely dependent upon his mother.
9. In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to reimburse the petitioner tuition fee from the date his mother died. Let the amount be worked out and made over to the petitioner within a month from today.
10. This petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.