LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. versus M.P. OJHA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. v. M.P. OJHA AND ANR. DECEMBER 18, 1997 B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) M.P. Civil Seivices (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958: Rules 2(d)(ii) and (11)(1)-Medical expenses of the retired and aged C father of the State Govemment se1vant-R.eimbursement of-Criteria-Rules providing for reimbursement of medical expenses by a govemment se1vant on his family-Word 'family' as defined in Rule 2(d) includes parents wholly dependent on that govemment seiva11t-Father getting Rs. 414 as pen- sion-Held, a retired father getting palt1y sum of money as pension is wholly dependent on his son-17ierefore, the son, a government seivan~ e11titled to D reimbursement of medical and travelling expenses-Plea of State that father was a pensioner and iheref ore, not. wholly dependent on the son, rejected-Se1vice Law-Medical expe11seS---Crite1ia-Fundame11tal Rules, FR 9(32)-Supplemelltary Rules, R. 8. E Words and Phrases---J'wholly dependent''-171e expression has to be inte!preted with reference to the mies in which it occurs, keeping in view the object of the mles--Dejinition. from another set of mies can not be im- polted-171e depende11ce may be financial as well as physical-/nte!pretation of statutes-Basic mies of inte!pretation---l'wposive inte!pretation-Seivice law. F The father or an employee or the State or M.P. (Respondent No. 1), who was getting a pension of Rs. 414 per month, developed serious ailment the treatment for which was not available in the State. Therefore the son, respondent No. 2, after taking permission from the competent authority, took his father for m.atment to Bombay Under the M.P. Civil Services G (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, the respondent No. 1 would be a mem- ber of the family of his son, respondent No. 2. respondent No. 2 submitted a Bill for the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his father as per Medical Rules. This reimbursement was denied by the State on the ground that respondent No. 1 was himself a H pensioner and that even if respondent was a family member of the respon- 654 STATE v. M.P. OJHA 655 dent No. 2, he was not wholly dependent on the respondent No. 2 as per A Rule 2(d) of the ·Medical Rules. The Respondents approached the Tribunal seeking relief of reimbur- sement, which was allowed by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by the State. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : I. The expression "wholly dependent" is not a term of art. It B has to be given its due meaning with reference to the rules in which it appears. It is not necessary to make an attempt to define the expression "wholly dependent" which should be applicable to all cases in all cir- C cumstances. It is also not necessary to look into other provisions of law where such expression is defined. That would lead to results which the relevant rules may not have contemplated. The expression "wholly depend- ent has to be understood in the context in which it is used, keeping in view the object of the particular rules where it is contained. The meaning of "wholly dependent" occurring i_n M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, cannot be confined to mere financial dependence. Ordinarily, dependence means financial dependence but for a member of family, it would mean other support, may be physical as well. To be "wholly depend- ent" would therefore include both financial and physical dependence. If support required is physical and a member of the family is otherwise financially sound, he may not necessarily be wholly dependent. [661-BC] 2. In the present case, the father was 70 years old and was sick. It cannot be said that he was not wholly dependent on his son. The son had to look after him in his old age. Even otherwise by getting a pension of Rs. D E 414 per month which by any standard is a paltry amount, it could not be F said that the father was not "wholly dependent" on his son. That the father had a separate capacity of being a retired government servant is immaterial if his case falls within the Medical Rules, being a member of the family of his son and wholly dependent on him. A flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying the rules in a case like the present one. There is no dispute that the son took his father to Bombay for treatment for his G serious aliment after getting due permission from the competent authority. It.is not necessary to exami
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.