Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 January, 2023
Author: Manoj Bajaj
Bench: Manoj Bajaj
Neutral Citation No:=
CWP-22058-2022 1
112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-22058-2022
Date of decision : 24.01.2023
Dr.Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present: Mr. Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana.
***
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner-Dr. Manoj Kumar has filed this civil writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the medical bills submitted by him on 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-6), towards expenses incurred on the treatment of his father-dependent, which are pending clearance despite the petitioner's clarification dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure P-8) submitted in response to the queries dated 31.10.2019 raised by respondent No.2.
Briefly, the facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner is working as dental surgeon with the Health Department, Haryana, who got his father, namely, Satya Veer Sharma treated at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, Delhi for cancer and got him admitted on 03.03.2017. The father of the petitioner died on 15.04.2017 and the discharge summary dated 11.10.2017 is Annexure P-1. As the petitioner is Haryana Government employee,who is entitled to claim reimbursement towards medical treatment for dependents, therefore, he submitted his claim for reimbursement 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 23:48:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP-22058-2022 2 of medical bills through communication dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-2) total amounting to Rs.12,69,562.8/-. In response, the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Health Centre Rania, Sirsa vide letter dated 03.05.2019 (Annexure P-3) returned the same in original informing the petitioner that since his father was retired employee of Central Bank of India, who had been drawing monthly pension of Rs.24,804/-, as well as the benefits of fixed medical allowance and compensation from the employer-Bank, the claim be made from the said Bank. The petitioner sent reply to the said letter conveying that his father (employee of Bank) was covered under the Health Insurance Policy of the Bank maximum up to Rs.4,00,000/-, which was directly paid by the Bank to the hospital under cashless facility. Since the Bank has no medical claim policy for retired employees, he submitted his affidavit alongwith this reply that his father was fully dependent on him and the copies are Annexures P-4 and P-5. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-6) forwarded the claim of the petitioner for release of bills to respondent No.1 and sought approval for an amount of Rs.12,59,940/-, but through letter dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-7) from Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Health Department, Chandigarh-respondent No.1 while considering the petitioner's affidavit and reply, raised the objection and sought clarification regarding basis of the recommendation etc. for approval as the claim was not covered as per the instructions. Again, the petitioner sent his reply dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure P-
8) to respondent No.2 and relied upon judicial decision to justify the claim and projected that though his father was drawing monthly pension of Rs.24,804/- at the time of his death on 22.04.2017, but he was still dependent upon him. Lastly, it has been averred that despite all the clarification and submission of 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 23:48:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP-22058-2022 3 documents, the claim of the petitioner is not being decided and in support of his case, reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court delivered in CWP- 4892-2016, titled as "Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana". The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to reimburse medical bills in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is working as a dental surgeon and being a government employee is well within his rights to seek medical reimbursement of his dependent family members. According to him, the petitioner's father was suffering from cancer and was admitted as indoor patient at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, Delhi, where he died on 15.04.2017 and during his treatment, total expenditure comes to Rs.15,91,475/-. The petitioner submitted his claim for medical reimbursement and the same has not been cleared so far. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the various communications between the petitioner and the respondents to assert that all the clarifications as required by respondents were furnished by the petitioner, but till date nothing has been done. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision passed in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) and argued that while interpreting the definition of dependent, it was held that such claim is to be decided on facts of each case and even if, dependent was drawing the pension even then the claim for medical reimbursement would be maintainable by adopting flexible approach in interpreting the applicable rules. He prays that the petition be allowed and a writ of mandamus be issued as prayed for.
After hearing learned counsel and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it transpires that the petitioner's father had served 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 23:48:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP-22058-2022 4 Central Bank of India, who after completion of his services, retired in the year 2016 and at that juncture, his monthly pension was fixed at Rs.24,804/-. Concededly, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was also paid by the Bank to the hospital under the cashless health insurance cover during treatment of petitioner's father. No doubt, the definition of family member/dependent as contained in the Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940 does include the parents of the government servant, but that alone would not be sufficient to accept such claim for medical reimbursement, unless the said dependent/parent was wholly dependent upon the government servant. A perusal of the Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940 shows that in case of the medial reimbursement relating to the treatment of the dependent, the government employee is required to furnish dependency certificate. Earlier by virtue of Haryana Government letter No.4197-USFP-Cell70/24708 dated 11.09.1970, the ceiling of income of dependents was fixed at Rs.750/- per month for the purposes of admissibility of such a claim, but subsequently through notification dated 14.12.2007, this ceiling was increased to Rs.3,500/-.
The reliance upon decision in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) would not lend any strength to the petitioner's case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M.P.Ojha", 1998 (2) SCC 554 has clearly held that 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, wherein it is contained. Of course, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that a flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting the applicable rules, but it would not mean that this Court would inject extreme elasticity in the definition of dependents by substituting its' meaning. In Manoj Kumar's case though this 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 23:48:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP-22058-2022 5 court noticed the ceiling of Rs.3,500/-per month in respect of the income of dependent, while accepting the writ petition, but ignored the same on the ground that the patient was suffering from deadly disease and relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M.P.Ojha" relating to the flexible approach while analyzing the dependency upon government employee. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this decision has categorically laid down that the expression "wholly dependent" has to be construed in terms of the object of the applicable rules, therefore, in the given facts of the case in hand as well as the applicable rules, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the father of the petitioner would not fall within the definition of dependent considering his monthly pension of Rs.24,804/-. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner would fall within the definition of dependent as contained in Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940 is apparently misplaced.
Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(MANOJ BAJAJ)
24.01.2023 JUDGE
vanita
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 23:48:50 :::