S.B.C.W.P. NO. 3244/95-Ladu Singh Chouhan vs. State & Ors. Order dt:11/11/2008 1/4 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3244/95 (Ladu Singh Chouhan vs. State & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 11/11/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.K.S.Rathore, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Choudhary, Deputy Government Counsel. 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order Annex.16 dated 9/3/1995, whereby, the Directorate of Sheep and Wool, Department, Government of Rajasthan rejected the claim of petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.88,300/- incurred by him for kidney transplantation of his son Jitendra Singh in the year 1993 when he was 32 years of age and suffered renal failure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the definition of family which is reproduced below, the children wholly dependent upon the Government servant fall within the definition of family as defined in clause (ix) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970. “(ix) `Family' means Government servant's wife (not more than one) husband (in case of a woman Government servant), children including children adopted legally and parents, if wholly dependent upon S.B.C.W.P. NO. 3244/95-Ladu Singh Chouhan vs. State & Ors. Order dt:11/11/2008 2/4 the Government Servant.” 4. He submits that since the said son Jitendra Singh was neither employed in any Government job or private job and though married and having children was dependent upon his father and the family of 17 members as per the ration card produced before the authority concerned and before this Court also were only doing some agricultural operation. He submits that certificate of various authorities like Tehsildar and Patwari were produced in pursuance of the letter Annex.10 dated 22/7/1994 of Senior Accounts Officer of the Directorate of Sheep and Wool Department which clearly established that said son Jitendra Singh was dependent upon the petitioner-father, who was serving with the Department. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the claim of petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the twin grounds of treatment being carried out in unrecognized hospital at Nadiad (Gujarat) and also that said son Jitendra Singh being not treated as wholly dependent upon the father. He, therefore, submits that the case of petitioner deserves to be reconsidered and medical expenses incurred by him for treatment of his son, who unfortunately expired after the said kidney transplantation within a month or so deserves to be reimbursed to S.B.C.W.P. NO. 3244/95-Ladu Singh Chouhan vs. State & Ors. Order dt:11/11/2008 3/4 him. 5. These contentions are opposed by Mr.Deepak Chowdhary, learned counsel for the respondent, who submits that since the son of petitioner did not fall within the definition of wholly dependent son, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. 6. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of record, it is seen that the order dated 9/3/1995 was passed by the concerned authority namely Senior Accounts Officers rejecting the claim of petitioner of medical reimbursement without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Of course, whether the son was wholly dependent upon the father – petitioner herein or not is a question of fact which would depend upon the evidence led by the petitioner. It is expected that whatever evidence is produced by the petitioner ought to have been considered before rejecting the claim. If the rules permit reimbursement of medical expenses of wholly dependent son irrespective of his marital status then such question of fact is required to be decided after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the present case, it is noticed that Annex.16 dated 9/3/1995 was passed without hearing the petitioner and the said order does not discuss in detail the evidence produced by petitioner as to S.B.C.W.P. NO. 3244/95-Ladu Singh Chouhan vs. State & Ors. Order dt:11/11/2008 4/4 why the son should not be treated dependent upon the father- petitioner herein. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annex.16 dated 9/3/1995 is set aside. The Directorate of Sheep and Wool Department, Jaipur is directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses as aforesaid on the basis of evidence already produced by petitioner with further liberty to the petitioner to adduce evidence to establish that his son was wholly dependent upon him during his life time and during the treatment of his renal disease by way of kidney transplantation. If the authority concerned finds that said son Jitendra Singh was wholly dependent upon the petitioner, the respondents shall reimburse the said expenses to the petitioner. If, however, the said authority comes to a different conclusion, it is expected that a reasoned order would be passed by him after discussing the evidence produced by petitioner. The above exercise be completed within three months from today. No order as to costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.s-7 baweja/-