CWP No.20422 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20422 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2011 **** Nasib Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. UT Administration, Chandigarh & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1&3 Mr. PK Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the memo/letters dated 07.08.2007, 18.10.2007 & 27.06.2008 (Annexures P6, P9, & P17 respectively) whereby his claim for medical re-imbursement of the entire expenses incurred on the treatment of his son from 17.11.2006 to 13.12.2006, has been declined. CWP No.20422 of 2008.doc - 2 – (2). Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention here that the petitioner served the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in different ranks till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2008 from the post of Assistant Registrar. The petitioner’s son Dharminder Singh aged about 26 years was employed as a ‘daily wager’ in Godrej Industry at Mohali and while going on a bicycle, he unfortunately met with an accident on 16.11.2006 and received multiple injuries on head, back, left shoulder, spinal cord and legs. The petitioner’s son was declared 100% permanently disabled by the Civil Surgeon, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide certificate dated 19.09.2007 (Annexure P8). Unfortunately, son of the petitioner, Dharminder Singh died on 14.03.2009. (3). The re-imbursement of medical expenses to the tune of Rs.68,972/- incurred prior to the certification of permanent disability of the petitioner’s son has been declined by the respondents on the plea that during that period he was not wholly dependent on his father as he was earning more than Rs.500/- per month. CWP No.20422 of 2008.doc - 3 – (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. (5). The admissibility of medical re-imbursement is governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1940 (in short, ‘the Rules’) and the policy Circulars issued thereunder from time to time. Chapter II of these Rules govern the entitlement of medical re-imbursement for the ‘family members’. (6). The expression ‘Family Members’ for the purposes of the re-imbursement of medical charges reads as under:- “A Government servants’ wife and husband in the case of a female Government, who is residing with and wholly dependant on him/her, legitimate children, step children, legally adopted children and parents, widowed daughters residing with and wholly dependant on him/her. The terms “Family” means a Government servant’s wife or Judicially separate wife, and husband in the case of female Govt. servant who is residing with and wholly dependant on him/her, legitimate children, step children, legally adopted children and parents, widowed daughters, unmarried minor sisters and minor brothers residing with and wholly dependent on him/her” CWP No.20422 of 2008.doc - 4 – (7). It would be seen that the ‘Family’ includes legitimate/step/legally adopted children of the Government servant who are ‘wholly dependent’ on him/her. The short question that arises for consideration is “as to whether or not the deceased son of the petitioner while employed as a daily-wager in a private employment, was wholly dependent on the petitioner for the purposes of medical reimbursement ?” (8). It is an admitted fact and is so averred by the respondents themselves that the deceased son of the petitioner was employed as a daily-wager in a private company. The petitioner’s positive case and refuted by none is that no ‘medical allowance’ or ‘free medical facilities’ were admissible to his son from the private employer. The deceased son of the petitioner used to be paid total emoluments of Rs.500 p.m. only, even though the minimum wages notified by the Government of Punjab vide Notification No. 805-900 dated 19.03.2007 at that time were Rs.94.81 per day. (9). The ancillary but equally important question that needs to be answered is as to whether an employee who is not paid even the ‘minimum wages’ under the CWP No.20422 of 2008.doc - 5 – Minimum Wages Act, 1948 can be held to be self- dependent? (10). The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a piece of welfare legislation enacted for statutory fixation of the minimum wages largely for the unorganized class of labourers and in an era of demand and supply whose bargaining power is also poor. The minimum wages are required to be determined under the Act keeping in view the cost of living Index Number, namely, which in turn, takes into account the basic needs for bare survival. (11). In my considered opinion, the non-payment of minimum wages to an employee by itself is a conclusive proof that he is not ‘self-dependent’ and cannot sustain himself. The lack of security of employment would also perforce make him dependent upon his other family members even for animal survival. The son of the petitioner was no exception. (12). The re-imbursement of the expenses incurred by an employee on his own medical treatment or of his dependent family members is essentially an integral part of the State’s welfare policy which would invite CWP No.20422 of 2008.doc - 6 – liberal and expansive construction to bring all possible but deserving beneficiaries within its framework. (13). Where the dependant family member of a Government employee, who owing to the meager wages he earns, is unable to avail the basic medical facilities and is compelled by circumstances to look towards his/her parents or siblings, he would be deemed to be wholly dependent on such family members for the purposes of the Rules/policy under consideration. (14). Since no medical facilities of any sort were extended to the deceased son of the petitioner by his employer, he was otherwise wholly dependent on his father in this regard. (15). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders/letters dated 07.08.2007, 18.10.2007 & 27.06.2008 (Annexures P6, P9, & P17 respectively) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to re-imburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. CWP No.20422 of 2008.doc - 7 – (16). It is, however, clarified that the above-given interpretation will be inapplicable in a case where the child of a Government servant is ‘self-dependent’ and/or has sufficient means to meet his/her medical expenses. (17). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 12.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge