IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 19483 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 25th August, 2011. Kamla Rani Petitioner through Mr. P.K.Dwivedi, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.02.2010 whereby her claim for medical reimbursement of the expenses incurred on the treatment of her husband, have been declined on the plea that he was in service of the Government of India Undertaking, namely, HMT Pinjore. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband did not seek any reimbursement from the HMT Pinjore. That being so, the objection raised by the respondents can not sustain in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Usha Kumari v State of Punjab & Ors., [CWP No. 10937 of 2007 decided on 20.05.2008] , operative part of which reads as under:- “In the case of Nand Rani (Supra), the husband of the petitioner had retired from service and was getting pension of Rs.3105/-P.M. He was suffering from heart ailment and had suffered three heart attacks, thereafter, had gone by pass surgery. He was also denied medical reimbursement on the ground that as per government Instructions dated 3-1-1994, family members of the Government employees whose monthly income is more than Rs.500/- is not considered as dependent upon Government employees for reimbursement purpose and since husband of the petitioner in that case was getting Rs.3105/-P.M having retired as Senior Post Master, Ambala, he was held to be not entitled for medical reimbursement. This Court while allowing the writ petition held “husband of the petitioner would squarely fall in the definition of family inspite of the fact that he is getting some meager pension from the government. The expression 'wholly dependent' would cover the husband of the petitioner as per the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court”. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to re- imburse the medical expenditure incurred by her on the treatment of her husband, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. August 25, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE