Remanded

Ramlal Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2024WPS/855/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a public interest litigation filed by the father of a deceased dairy assistant for medical reimbursement. The court held that no enquiry was conducted regarding the son's dependency before rejection and remitted the claim to the Board of Directors for fresh consideration under liberal principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; claim remitted to the Executive Body/Board of Directors of the Dugdha Mahasangha for fresh deliberation within three months.

Ramlal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

WPS No.855 of 2016

2024:CGHC:28929

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 855 of 2016

¶7

Ramlal Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramawtar Sharma, Aged About 60 Years Worked As Dairy Dak Assistant, at Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation, Ltd. R/o Abhuday Parisar, Nagar Ghadhi Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of CoOperative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- B, Second And Third Floor, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Urla, P.S. BMY Charouda, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶14

Dr. S.S. Gaharwar, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Dairy CoOperative Federation Ltd., Village Urla, Post BMY Charoda, P.S. Charoda, Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh

¶15

Shri Rasik Parmar, Chariman, Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Village Urla, Post BMY Charoda, P.S. Charoda, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Deleted (Smt. Sawitri Bhagat)

¶17

Deleted (Smt. Sarita Tiwari)

¶18

Deleted (Dr. Sudhir Uprit)

¶19

Deleted (Dr. S.P. Tiwari)

¶20

Digitally 10. Deleted (Dr. S.P. Tiwari) signed by K GOWRI K GOWRI SANKARA SANKARARAO RAODate: 11. Deleted (Shri Vaman Rao Handey) 2024.08.05 17:38:06 +0530

¶21

¶22

WPS No.855 of 2016

¶23

Deleted (Dr. M.P. Pasi)

¶24

7 to 12 are deleted as per Honble Court Order Date 31/03/2016

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

For Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate

¶27

For Respondent/State : Ms Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate with Shri Navoday Singh, Advocate

¶28

Order on Board By Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶29

2-8-2024

¶30

The present petition has been filed by the father of the deceased namely; Dipak Sharma that he was working with the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and the service rules, which governed the services of the petitioner are ‘the Chhattisgarh Dugdh Mahasangh Sahakari Maryadit, Karmchari Bharti, Vargikaran Tatha Seva Sharten Viniyam, 1985 (for short ‘the Regulations, 1985’). According to the petitioner, the said Regulations are saved under Section 55 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act, 1960’) and it was approved by the Registrar. The son of the petitioner met with an accident on 28/09/2014. He was treated in different hospitals at Raipur. Eventually he breathed his last on 27/11/2014.

¶31

The petitioner submitted medical bills for reimbursement towards the expenses incurred by him for treatment of his son, but the same was denied on 08/09/2015 vide Annexure P/1 making a reference to a memo issued by the State Government on dated 14/03/2013 on the ground that the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of treatment of only minor son, and further it was noticed that the deceased was a married and was

¶32

¶33

WPS No.855 of 2016

¶34

allotted with a milk parlour to operate the same, as such was held to be not dependent. Therefore, on different grounds the claim for medical reimbursement was denied.

¶35

The submission is that in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses for the children of the employees Regulation 56 of the Regulations 1985 would be applicable wherein it has been provided that for expenses incurred on son when he is dependent, the employee would be entitled for reimbursement. He would further submit that though the milk parlour was allotted in favour of the son of the petitioner, it was closed and according to the petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/- was being deducted from his salary, which shows that the son is completely dependent on the father i.e. the petitioner, therefore, without any enquiry, the rejection of like nature is against the spirit of Regulation 56.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4, ex adverso , who is the main contesting party, would submit that the son of the petitioner was working as he was allotted with a milk parlour and being the major as per the policy of the State he was not entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses. Learned counsel would further submit that the action of the respondent in respect of the rejection of medical reimbursement submitted by the petitioner is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the aforesaid arguments advanced by the Respondent No.4.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶39

¶40

WPS No.855 of 2016

¶41

It would be apt to quote the Regulation 56 of the Regulations 1985 for

¶42

proper adjudication of the present petition. The same is quoted below:-

¶43

56 fpfdRlk O;; dh izfriwfrZ

¶44

¼1½ deZpkjh dks muds }kjk fd;s x;s okLrfod fpfdRlk mipkj O;; rFkk ijke’kZ ij fd;k x;k O;;] fpfdRlky;hu O;;] nokvksa dk ewY;] ‘kY; fpfdRlk O;;] okMZ&fdjk;k] jksx fpfdRlk ijh{k.k O;; tks mudk Lo;a dk gks ;k mu ij vkfJr ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dk gks] dh izfriwfrZ] iathc) ;k [kktxh fpfdRlk O;olk;h ftUgsa izcU/k lapkyd ds }kjk bl dk;Z ds fy, ^^izkf/kdr fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh** ?kksf”kr fd;k x;k gks] ds ek/;e ls dh tkosxhA ,sls izdj.k esa tgka izkf/kdr fpfdRlk izkf/kdkjh ;g izekf.kr djrk gS fd jkT; esa fo’ks”khd`r mipkj ds miyC/k u gksus ds dkj.k ;g vko’;d gS fd e/;izns’k jkT; dh lhek ls ckgj ds fo’ks”kK ls fpfdRlk djkbZ tk;s] rc deZpkjh dks Lo;a mudk ;k mu ij vkfJr ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks e/;izns’k ds ckgj ds fo’ks”kK }kjk dh xbZ fpfdRlk ds okLrfod O;; dh izfriwfrZ dh tk;sxhA bykt ij gq, okLrfod O;; esa nokbZ;ksa dk ewY;] ‘kY; fpfdRlk lthZdy vkijs’ku dk O;;] okMZ dk vk/kk fdjk;k] iSFkkykthdy ijh{k.kksa dk O;; rFkk ijke’kZ ds fy, fpfdRld dks nh xbZ Qhl rFkk ;k=k fu;e ds vuqlkj ;k=k O;; ‘kkfey gSA

¶45

¼2½ l{ke izkf/kdkjh fpfdRlk O;; dh izfriwfrZ lEcU/kh ns;d rFkk mlds lkFk layXu fd;s tkus okys nLrkostksa dks izLrqr djus lEcU/kh izfØ;k ds lEcU/k esa mfpr funsZ’k tkjh djsaxsA bl izdkj ls izkIr ns;d muds }kjk lgh o fu;ekuqlkj gksus dh larqf”V ds ckn eatwj fd;s tk;saxsA bu fpfpRlk ns;dksa ij flfoy ltZu ds izfrgLrk{kj dh vko’;drk ugha gksxhA

¶46

¼3½ ^^izkf/kdr fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh** dk dk;Z fdlh Hkh ljdkjh vLirky@fMlisaljh ds fQftf’k;u@ltZu@gdhe@oS|@gksE;ksiSFk ftuesa O;k[;krk] lgk;d izksQsllZ@jhMlZ vkfn tks esfMdy dkystksa esa gS rFkk futh O;olk; djus okys ¼,ech-ch-,l-@,e-Mh-@,e-,l-½ ftUgsa izca/k lapkyd }kjk bl dk;Z ds fy;s izkf/kdr fd;k gS] led{k ;ksX;rk j[kus okys vk;qosZfnd@gksE;ksiSfFkd@;wukuh vkS”kf/k iz.kkyh ds MkDVjksa dks Hkh izcU/k lapkyd }kjk ^^izkf/kd`r fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh** ?kksf”kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶47

Perusal of the denial of claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses, which engrafts in Annexure P/1, would show that while deliberation was made it was discussed that deceased Deepak Sharma was married and he was also allotted a Milk Parlour. Further, the son was not considered as dependent and being major pursuant to the

¶48

¶49

WPS No.855 of 2016

¶50

memo of the State Government dated 14/03/2013, the reimbursement was denied when the specific regulation was operative in the field. It appears, prima facie , that the respondent authorities misdirected themselves to fall back to the notification dated 14/03/2013 of the State Government and even otherwise the said notification do not completely eliminate the claim as the son is also included provided if they are dependent. Plain reading of Regulation 56 do not give such narrow interpretation to resist the claim.

¶51

Regulation 56 of the Regulations 1985, which speaks about dependent, has to be liberally construed as in the return itself the Respondent No.4 filed a document Annexure R-4/1, which is a letter written by the deceased himself that albeit he was allotted with a milk parlour he was unable to run the same and the dues may be set off. Subsequently, a note sheet, which is annexed, would show that the petitioner agreed to pay back the amount of dues to his son with a monthly deduction of Rs.10,000/- from his salary. These facts when are seen as a cluster it goes to show that the deceased was dependent on the petitioner, however, no enquiry was conducted by the authorities while dismissing the claim of the petitioner.

¶52

10. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. and Others Vs. M.P. Ojha and Another {(1998) 2 SCC 554} while interpreting the word ‘wholly dependent’ held that the expression "wholly dependent" is not a term of art. It has to be given its due meaning with reference to the Rules in which it appears. It further held that the meaning of "wholly dependent" cannot be curtailed by reading into this the definition and the word "wholly dependent" cannot be confined to mere financial

¶53

¶54

WPS No.855 of 2016

¶55

dependence. It also held that ordinarily dependence means financial dependence but for a member of family it would mean other support, may be physical, as well. Therefore, the wholly dependent would include both physical and financial. In the said judgment the Supreme Court held thus at para 13:-

¶56

The expression “wholly dependent” is not a term of art. It has to be given its due meaning with reference to the Rules in which it appears. We need not make any attempt to define the expression “wholly dependent” to be applicable to all cases in all circumstances. We also need not look into other provisions of law where such expression is defined. That would be likely to lead to results which the relevant rules would not have contemplated. The expression “wholly dependent” 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. We cannot curtail the meaning of “wholly dependent” by reading into this the definition as given in SR 8 [ sic SR 2(8)] which has been reproduced above. Further, the expression “wholly dependent” as appearing in the definition of family as given in Medical Rules cannot be confined to mere financial dependence. Ordinarily dependence means financial dependence but for a member of a family it would mean other support, maybe physical, as well. To be “wholly dependent” 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. Here the father was 70 years of age and was sick and it could not be said that he was not wholly dependent on his son. The son has to look after him in his old age. Even otherwise by getting a pension of Rs 414 per month which by any standard is a paltry amount it could not be 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 serious ailment after getting due permission from the competent authority. It was submitted before us that the father being a retired government servant could himself get sanction for treatment outside the State as a special case from the competent authority. It is not necessary for us to look into

¶57

¶58

WPS No.855 of 2016

¶59

this aspect of the matter as we are satisfied that under the relevant Medical Rules, the father was a member of the family of his son and was wholly dependent on him and the 2nd respondent was thus fully entitled to reimbursement for the expenses incurred on the treatment of his father and other travelling expenses.

¶60

11. Now reverting to the facts of this case since the record would show that only on the ground that the deceased being married and operating the milk parlour the dependency was declined. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted. The said presumption further carried into rejection by way of Annexure P/1 and adjudicated the issue confined in a room, therefore, the rejection of the said claim cannot be appreciated and in same breath resolution contains the fact about approval of foreign visit of the President of the Dugdha Mahasangh. It is minimum expectation that before rejection of such claim at the threshold the enqiry is necessitated, which falls short in this case. The respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner by adopting the humanitarian grounds.

¶61

12. In view of the foregoing observations, the present issue is remitted back to the Executive Body/Board of Directors of the Dugdha Mahasangha to deliberate afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶62

13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶65

Gowri

Ramlal Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Resham Lal Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nishamunni Nagwanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mailprakash Toppo Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh