Smt. Sangeeta Deshpande v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

some medical attention and treatment due to her ailment, which was provided to her after due sanction. It is submitted that the expenses incurred on the medical treatment was disbursed time and again whenever required. Due permission was pending with the authorities, which is also apparent from the note-sheet, annexure P/3 and the letter of recommendation sent by the Commissioner, Town and Country Planning vide order dated 03.03.2017 to the Principal Secretary for grant of sanction observing that the husband of the petitioner died during service and as the mother of the deceased employee was totally dependent on the wife who has got the employment on compassionate ground, the definition of the dependent be considered sympathetically and in its true prospective. However, the authorities without taking into consideration the interpretation of the rules and taking hyper- technical view vide order dated 22.02.2018 has rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed for recovery of the amount which was already disbursed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per definition 2(d) of the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1958), parents of the employee who are wholly dependent on the employee shall be entitled for the medical reimbursement for the treatment which they have undergone for their illness, therefore, mother-in-law is not the dependent in the light of the definition. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and recovery has been ordered.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2

5. From a perusal of the record, it is admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was serving in the Government department and as per the Rules of 1958, he was entitled for all the facilities which are available for the treatment of the parents. It is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner was the only son of her mother-in-law who has got the facility of medical treatment claimed by the daughter-in-law (the petitioner), who is a Government employee.

6. Definition of family provided under Rules 2(d) of the Rules of 1958 reads as under :-

2(d) "Family" means-

(i) The wife or husband of a Government servant.

(ii) The parents, legitimate children including children adopted legally and step children of such Government servant residing with and wholly dependent on that Government servant.

7. From perusal of the definition, the parents of the Government employee are entitled for medical reimbursement when they are wholly dependent on the said Government employee. It is not disputed that the person who has got the treatment is mother of the deceased employee. Had the employee been alive, the mother would have got the treatment in the light of section 2(d). As the public servant died during service, therefore, his wife has got the employment on compassionate ground. Therefore, she also became the Government servant and as per definition she is also entitled for the same facility. It is also not disputed that there is no other person on whom the mother is dependent. The deceased employee was the only son of mother-in-law of the petitioner, who has got the treatment and, therefore, she was dependent on the son. After death of the son, she became dependent on the daughter-in-law.

3

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. M.P. Ojha, (1998) 2 SCC 554 has held as under :-

13. 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 dependent" 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 be 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 [sic SR 2(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 a family it would mean other support, maybe physical, as well. To be "wholly dependent"

would therefore include both financial and physical dependence.---

--.

9. From bare perusal of the interpretation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court is also of the considered view that if the Government employee expired and on account of death of the said employee if the wife has got an employment, then any parent dependent on the son would be dependent on the daughter-in-law. Therefore, no exception can be carved out to interpret that the in-laws would not be included in the definition of rule 2(d) for the purpose of dependent. The parents of the deceased employee would be dependent on the spouse of the deceased employee. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.12.2018 (annexure P/1) suffers from illegality and could not succeed the test in the judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order dated

4

(DEEPAK KHOT)

JUDGE

22.12.2018 (annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The recovery, if any, made shall be refunded within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed.

HS

5