Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 58 (PAT)

Vijayendra Kumar v. Food Corporation Of India

2007-01-09

JAYANANDAN SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. In this writ application petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical bill of treatment of his father, who had undergone bypass surgery. 2. Petitioner contends that at the time of submission of medical bill he was an employee of the Food Corporation of India and his father, who was a retired employee of the Corporation, was dependent upon him. His father required bypass surgery and that was conducted on him in the month of September, 2001 in Jeevak Heart Hospital (P) Ltd., Patna. He incurred expenses of Rs. 1,57,675.90+Rs. 15,000.00. "After getting the bills from the Hospital, petitioner submitted the same to the authorities of the Corporation which was forwarded by the District Manager to the Branch Regional Manager vide his letter dated 13.12.2001, as contained in Annexure-1. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners father was getting a sum of Rs. 1038/- as monthly pension which was a meagre amount and as such he was fully dependent on the petitioner. In the circumstances it was claimed that the father of the petitioner was fully dependent on him and therefore he was covered under the definition of the family, as laid down in the circulars and orders of the Respondents-Corporation. 4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit in the case in which in nutshell it has been claimed that the father of the petitioner was getting pension of Rs. 4535/-in the capacity of a retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation and therefore he was not fully dependent on the petitioner and was not covered by the definition of family as given in the circular of the Corporation. It has been further claimed in the counter affidavit that the definition of family as given in the circular clearly lays down that only those dependents whose monthly income did not exceed Rs. 1,500/-per month from all sources could be included in the definition of family. As the father of the petitioner was getting a pension of Rs. 4,535/- which was much more than Rs. 1,500/-, he was not wholly dependent on the petitioner and as such the petitioner was not entitled to medical reimbursement bills for treatment of his father. 5. 1,500/-per month from all sources could be included in the definition of family. As the father of the petitioner was getting a pension of Rs. 4,535/- which was much more than Rs. 1,500/-, he was not wholly dependent on the petitioner and as such the petitioner was not entitled to medical reimbursement bills for treatment of his father. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to one judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. M.P. Ojha, reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 659 . 6. In the aforesaid case a similar provision of M.R Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 came for consideration. In that Rules it was provided that dependents not having income of more than Rs. 250.00 per month were to be treated as wholly dependent upon the Government servant. In the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court the retired Government servant was getting pension of Rs. 414/-per month and definition of wholly dependent was in question. The Supreme Court held that old parents will also be considered as wholly dependent on the Government servant. It was also held that wholly dependent would include both financial and physical dependence and therefore if the retired Government servant was not financially sound he would be treated as wholly dependent on his son. It was observed that if the member of the family is otherwise financially sound, he may not necessarily be wholly dependent on his son. However, in the facts of that case, it was found that the father of the Government servant was 70 years of age and was getting a paltry sum of Rs. 414/- per month as pension, in that situation, it was held that it could not be claimed that the father was not wholly dependent on his son. 7. In the present case, I find that the father of the petitioner was getting handsome sum of Rs. 4,535/- as pension on his own in the capacity of retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation and therefore, he is not wholly financially dependent on the petitioner. The case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts as father of the petitioner cannot be held to be wholly dependent on his son both physically and financially. 8. The case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts as father of the petitioner cannot be held to be wholly dependent on his son both physically and financially. 8. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.