HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4719 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2011 **** Rohit Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & 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: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P7) whereby the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his deceased mother amounting to Rs.1,20,398/-, though sanctioned at one point of time, has been declined. (2). The petitioner is serving as ETT in the Government Education Department, Punjab. His mother had to be hospitalized and she underwent surgical operations on account of breast cancer before her unfortunate demise. The petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,42,111.08 paise towards surgery charges, lab tests, X-rays, radio therapy, medicines and doctor fees etc. on the treatment of CWP No.4719 of 2010.doc - 2 – his mother. On submission of the medical bills by him, the competent authority vide memo dated 14.08.2006 (Annexure P4) sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,20,398/-. The payment of the said amount was, however, withheld and later on petitioner’s claim was turned down on the plea that his father was a retiree from the Bank and was drawing Rs.2592/- per month as pension and that his mother was dependent upon her husband and not upon the petitioner (her son). (3). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (4). In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the facts are broadly admitted, reiterating that since the father of the petitioner was working in the Central Bank of India and drawing pension of Rs.2592/- per month, his mother shall be taken to be dependent upon his father and not the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the Government instructions dated 20.05.2004 to contend that once the income from all the sources of the alleged dependent was more than Rs.1000/- per month, the claim for medical reimbursement is inadmissible. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that this writ petition must succeed. I say so firstly for the reason that a Division Bench of this Court in Usha Kumari v. State of CWP No.4719 of 2010.doc - 3 – Punjab 2009 (1) RSJ 32 dealt with the above-mentioned executive instructions relied upon by the State Government to deny the medical reimbursement and held that the dependency cannot be determined merely on the basis of the financial calculations rather it is a social obligation and several other relevant factors need to be kept in view. The claim put forth by the petitioner thus stands answered in his favour by the Division Bench in Usha Kumari’s case (supra). (6). Secondly, keeping in view the Wholesale Price Index and the rate of inflation, the pension of Rs.2592/- per month drawn by the father of the petitioner is wholly insufficient even for bare sustenance of the retiree what to talk of the medical care of the mother of the petitioner during her lifetime. (7). Thirdly, unless it is proved that there is sufficient source of self income or of her spouse, the parents are legally, socially and morally dependent on their children. The executive instructions dated 20.05.2004 to the contrary have no rationale or legal force behind them and cannot defeat the legitimate right of the petitioner’s mother. (8). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P7) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release CWP No.4719 of 2010.doc - 4 – the payment of Rs.1,20,398/- incurred towards medical expenses on the treatment of the petitioner’s mother, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum per month. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 06.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge