Allowed

The State of Kerala v. Sunu George

Kerala HC24 Sept 2019WA/1313/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Kerala allowed the State Government's contest to a claim for medical reimbursement under the Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960. The Court held that a retired Headmistress drawing a pension exceeding Rs.22,000/- does not qualify as wholly dependent on her government servant daughter, thereby negating eligibility for reimbursement, distinguish

What did the court decide?

Set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and uphold the order of the Regional Deputy Director returning the reimbursement claim.

The State of Kerala Vs Sunu George — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 2ND ASWINA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21627/2016 DATED 14-11-2017 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR DHSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶16

SUNU GEORGE

¶17

HSST COMPUTER SCIENCE, ST.JOSEPH HSS, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR, W/O ADV.PEARL.K.DAVIS, PRATHEEKSHA , GANDHINAGAR PUTHEN VETTUVAZHY.P.O., EAST FORT, THRISSUR-680020.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.GANESH R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB R1 BY ADV. SRI.PEARL K.DAVIS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

¶19

SENIOR GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR FOR APPELLANT

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

C.R.

JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶26

The petitioner, a government servant, was before this Court seeking medical reimbursement for the heart surgery underwent by her mother, a retired Headmistress. The total claim for reimbursement was a sum of Rs.8,34,265/-. The Regional Deputy Director, before whom the application was submitted, returned the same finding that the mother, a retired Headmistress, is a pensioner and is drawing a pension of Rs.22180/-. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the amount of pension obtained by the mother was unable to sustain her and in fact she was wholly dependent on the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that the entire money for the treatment was spent by the petitioner.

¶27

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

¶28

¶29

2. It is argued that the condition in the Circular that only those parents, who are wholly dependent on the government servant, are eligible for medical reimbursement is arbitrary. When the

¶30

spouse of a government servant, who is a pensioner, is entitled to reimbursement, there is no reason why the parents are discriminated.

¶31

3. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of M.P. & Others v. M.P. Ojha & Another [(1998) (2) SCC 554] to direct the Regional Deputy Director to forward the application to the Government and the Government to consider the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of application in the light of M.P. Ojha's case [supra].

¶32

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the facts as revealed from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clearly distinct.

¶33

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

¶34

¶35

The Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960 clearly stipulates that the parents of a government Servant are eligible for medical reimbursement, for the treatments they are subjected to, only if they are wholly dependent on the government servant. The mere fact that the spouse who is a pensioner, has been permitted medical treatment, even if she/he is a pensioner, would not mitigate the rigor of reimbursement in the case of parents, is the argument.

¶36

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would take us to the clarificatory notifications issued by the Government, specifically indicating that the spouse alone would be entitled to medical reimbursement even if he or she is a pensioner. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no logic insofar as excluding the parents, who are pensioners, from medical reimbursement especially when the children have a duty to look

¶37

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

¶38

¶39

after the parents.

¶40

6. Going by the specific definition of

¶41

family, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any medical reimbursement in the case of expenses incurred for the treatment of pensioners; through

¶42

their children who are Government servants. M.P. Ojha was in the distinct circumstances of the father earning a meagre monthly pension of Rs.414/- and also being eligible for medical reimbursement as a retired Government employee. We specifically notice the following extract from the judgment:

¶43

“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

¶44

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

¶45

¶46

a special case from the competent authority.”

¶47

7. We notice from the above extract that

¶48

the decision in M.P. Ojha turns on the peculiar facts of a meagre pension of Rs.414/- and the pensioner also being entitled to reimbursement. In the present case the mother of the petitioner, who

¶49

is a retired Headmistress, draws more than Rs.22,000/- as pension and this cannot raise any presumption of dependence on the daughter, for sustenance or the treatment. Though the daughter has an obligation to look after the parents, it

¶50

cannot be said that there is a resultant obligation on the Government, the employer, to reimburse the expenses incurred by the daughter for the treatment of the mother. The rule regarding reimbursement also calls for no debate

¶51

and there is no challenge to the rule. The reimbursement of medical expense is an incidence of service regulated by the terms on which such

¶52

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

¶53

¶54

reimbursement is granted. It cannot be granted on grounds of equity or moral obligation and as we noticed, there is no challenge to the specific rule.

¶55

We hence set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal of the Government. The order of the Regional Deputy Director returning the claim of reimbursement is perfectly in order. There is no order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.

sp/25/09/19

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

WA.No.1313 OF 2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) 456/79/(41) FIN DATED 05.05.1979

¶68

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.64215/G2/ 2004/H & FWD DATED 31.03.2004.

The State of Kerala v. Sunu George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Sunu George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Deepak.K.R Vs Dr.Anoopa Krishna

K Shahul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

S.Subha Vs T.G.Gopakumar

Fathima Thasneem Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager,Thachinganadam Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala

G.Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala