IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 22518 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANTO J.S.PREETHA, AGED 33 YEARS, ST.MARY'S H.S., KAMUKINKODE, ARANAKUZHI P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASST.(LPSA) ST.MARY'S H.S.A., KAMUKINKODE). BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. 8. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 22518/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.12.01. P3. COPY OF THE ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.3.02 BY R6. P5. COPY OF THE ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.12.01. P7. COPY OF THE ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE DTD.31.12.2000. P8. -DO- DTD.13.4.01. P9. -DO- DTD.21.7.01. P10 -DO- DTD.2.12.01. P11. -DO- DTD.25.3.02. P12. COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD.3.7.2002. P13. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.18.7.02 BEFORE R7. P14. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM R4 TO R7 DTD.27.7.02. P15. COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM R3 TO R8 DTD.30.11.2001. P16. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.9.11.01 FROM R4 TO R3. P17. COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDERS DTD.18.9.02. P18. COPY OF THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. P19. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.15.6.04 IN COMPLAINT NO.899/02 BY THE LOK AYUKTA. P20. COPY OF THE ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE. P21 -DO- P22. -D0- P23. -DO- P24. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.2.7.04. P25. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.31.3.04 BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA. P26. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.9.11.2001. P27. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.15.10.2005. W.P.(C).No. 22518/2004 P28. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 31997/05 OF THIS COURT. P29. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.2.2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. P30. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.6.06 TO R8 BY R7. P31. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.4.4.07 OF THE A.E.O., BALARAMAPURAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DTD.17.2.2004. R1B TO (D) COPY OF THE O.P. TICKETS. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.22518 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Government servant. She is challenging Ext.P25 circular, by which, the Government has clarified that in respect of parents of the Government servants, who themselves are pensioners getting pension from the Government, no medical reimbursement is allowable to the Government servants. According to the petitioner, Ext.P25 restricting the right of the Government servants to get medical reimbursement in respect of their parents, who themselves have some income, is against the Kerala Government Servant's Medical Attendance Rules, 1960, insofar as the dependency has not been specifically defined in the Rules. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs; “i) to declare that Exhibit P25 circular is ultravires of Rules 3(e) of the Kerala Government Servant's Attendance Rules, 1960 and constitutionally invalid. ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to call for the records pertaining to Exhibits P24 and P25 and quash the same. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents No.(6) & (7) to sanction all the pending claims for reimbursement of medical bills of petitioner and to facilitate payment of amount within such time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 8th respondent to countersign the paybill in pursuance to Exhibits P2 and P6 and make payment for the paybill in pursuance to Exhibit P4 within such time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” w.p.c.22518/04 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that Ext.P25 does not either restrict or expand the rule. The same only makes the import of the rule abundantly clear. Medical reimbursement is allowable to a Government servant for the medical expenses incurred by him/her for treatment of himself/herself and members of his/her family. “Family” has been defined in clause 3(e) of the Kerala Government Servant's Medical Attendance Rules, 1960, which reads thus: “3. Definitions:- For the purpose of these rules- (a) ....... xxxx xxxx xxxx (e) “Family” means and includes the wife or husband, children, including adopted children, step children and parents wholly dependent upon the Government Servant.” 4. In Ext.P25 the Government clarifies that the expenses incurred in connection with the treatment of the parents who are wholly dependent on the Government servant can only be reimbursed and that if the parent is a pensioner, he/she will not be considered as wholly dependent on the Government servant. Going by the definition, the word, “family”, includes parents wholly dependent upon the Government servant. The word “wholly” has definite connotation both in language and in law. I have no doubt in my mind that if the parent has some income, he will not be wholly dependent on the Government servant. Only if the parent does not derive any income from any w.p.c.22518/04 3 source, he would be wholly dependent upon the Government servant. Ext.P25 circular does not create or extinguish any right given by the Rules. It only explains the correct meaning of the word “family” used in the Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner's parent is a pensioner drawing pension from the Government. As such, he is not wholly dependent on the petitioner as per the definition of “family” in the Rules. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of any medical expenses incurred by her for her parent, who himself is a pensioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge