Judgment :- K.A. SWAMI, C.J. When the writ appeal came up for hearing, we thought it necessary to hear the writ petition itself, therefore we directed writ petition 9194/1994 be posted for hearing along with the writ appeal which is preferred against the interim order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly we have heard both sides. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Notification No. 1-16-87-Per I dated November 30, 1989 and further to direct the respondents to include the petitioner in the VSNE Medical Reimbursement Scheme with effect from June 30, 1989. The notification dated November 30, 1989 which is produced at page 8 of the typed set of records, adds a clause to paragraph No. 8 of VSNE Medical Reimbursement Scheme, Clause 8 reads thus :- "Amount of reimbursement under this scheme will be on the basis of salary drawn by either husband or wife to be determined on the strength of a joint declaration submitted by them." It also further says that the entitlement of the employees concerned my be regulated on the basis of the above provision and past cases decided otherwise already need not be re-opened. 3. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced in this writ petition, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim medical reimbursement for the expenses incurred towards the treatment of his mother. 4. According to the respondents, the petitioner and his wife are both Central Government servants whereas the wife of the petitioner is in the higher post, the petitioner is in the lower post. Therefore in order to avail the higher medical benefit, the petitioner and his wife both together have filed a joint declaration as required by Rule 5(I)(c) of the Central Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In addition to this, they have also got included in the declaration the following dependants;--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Name Relationship with the Date of Birth Income (wherever No. employee applicable) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C. Dasarathan Husband 13-1-1950 2. D. Chandan Son 5-8-1987 3. D. Anusha Daughter 7-5-1991 4. S. Athiappan Father 19-2-1928 5. A. Pushpammal Mother 12-9-1926 6. A. Kasthuribai Sister 4-12-1961 7. A. Pattukkani Sister 1-8-1987 8. A. Saraswathi Sister 1-7-1971 9. A. Lakshmi Sister 20-10-1973 10. Name Relationship with the Date of Birth Income (wherever No. employee applicable) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C. Dasarathan Husband 13-1-1950 2. D. Chandan Son 5-8-1987 3. D. Anusha Daughter 7-5-1991 4. S. Athiappan Father 19-2-1928 5. A. Pushpammal Mother 12-9-1926 6. A. Kasthuribai Sister 4-12-1961 7. A. Pattukkani Sister 1-8-1987 8. A. Saraswathi Sister 1-7-1971 9. A. Lakshmi Sister 20-10-1973 10. Self --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any medical benefit for his mother. Reliance is placed on Rule 5(I)(c) of the Rules. 5. In order to determine the contention involved it is necessary to note Rule 5(I)(b) and (c) of the Rules :- "(b) The husband or wife of the Government servant, as the case may be, employed in a State Government or in the Defence/Railway Services or Corporation/bodies financed partly or wholly by the Central or the State Government, local bodies and private organisations, which provides medical services would be entitled to choose either the facilities under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, or the medical facilities provided by the organisation in which he/she is employed. (c) In case where both husband and wife are Central Government servants, they as well as eligible dependants may be allowed to avail of the medical concessions according to his/her status. For this purpose, they should furnish to their respective authorities a joint declaration as to who will prefer the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the medical attendance and treatment in respect of wife/husband and the children. The above declaration should be submitted in duplicate and a copy of each shall be recorded in the personal file of each of them in their respective offices. The declaration shall remain in force till such time it is revised on the express request in writing by both the husband and wife, e.g. in the event of promotion, transfer, resignation, etc. of either of the two. In the absence of such a joint declaration the medical concession shall be availed of by the wife and the children according to the status of husband." As per the definition of the term 'family' for the purpose of the Rules, the parents are also included in the category of dependants. of either of the two. In the absence of such a joint declaration the medical concession shall be availed of by the wife and the children according to the status of husband." As per the definition of the term 'family' for the purpose of the Rules, the parents are also included in the category of dependants. Rule 5(c) further states that when both the husband and wife are Central Government servants, they as well as eligible dependants may be allowed to avail the medical concession, according to his or her status. The remaining portion of Rule 5(c) deals with the joint declaration to be made by the husband and wife, if both of them are Central Government servants. As far as the first portion of Rule 5(c) is concerned, it clearly provides that the eligible dependants of husband and wife in case both of them are Central Government servants, are eligible for medical benefits. Therefore, it is clear that irrespective of the fact that there is a joint declaration made by the husband and wife in a case where both are Central Government Servants, for their medical reimbursement and the husband is included as one of the dependants of the wife, the eligible dependants of the husband who is also a Central Government servant, will also be entitled to medical benefits. The joint declaration is intended to facilitate maintaining of the medical benefits account and to avoid the confusion as to who should prefer the medical reimbursement bill and to provide the basis for extending the medical benefits and not deprive the eligible dependants from claiming the medical benefit according to the status of the Central Government Servant whose dependants they are. Hence, we are of the view that the refusal to extend medical benefit to the mother of the petitioner is not in accordance with the Rules. As such, the mother of the petitioner shall have to be included among the eligible dependants, irrespective of fact that petitioner has been included as one of the dependants in joint declaration made by him and his wife but the benefits are to be extended on the basis of the status of the petitioner as the mother is the dependant of the petitioner. The petitioner has been claiming medical benefit for his mother from August 3, 1990 as averred in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. The petitioner has been claiming medical benefit for his mother from August 3, 1990 as averred in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. That it is so, is not disputed. 6. Therefore, we allow this writ petition in the following terms : Irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has been included as one of the dependants in the joint declaration made by him and his wife, as per Rule 5(c) of the Rules, the dependant mother of the petitioner will be entitled to medical benefits as per the rules and the same shall be extended with effect from August 3, 1990. All the bills pending from that date shall be settled in accordance with the rules on the basis of the salary of the petitioner. The C.M.P. is also disposed of. 7. As a result of the order passed in the writ petition, the writ appeal does not survive. It is accordingly, dismissed. The C.M.P. is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both the writ petition and writ appeal.