Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 666 (DEL)

T. M. SAMPATH v. NATIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT AG

2007-03-26

REKHA SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Rekha Sharma, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is an employee of National Water Development Agency which is a Government of India Society under the Ministry of Water Resources. The petitioner submitted a bill of Rs. 5,985/ - to his Department for reimbursement on account of medical expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his widowed sister who is suffering from spinal disorder. The bill, in question, pertains to the period 17th April, 2006 to 18th April, 2006. The Department initially declined payment of the bill on the ground that the case of a widowed sister did not get covered under the NWDA Medical Attendance Rules. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner informed the office that on 28th July, 1992 a circular was issued which enlarged the definition of Family as given in the NWDA Medical Attendance Rules so as to include a widowed sister also besides some other relations. Faced with this, he was told through a communication dated July 31, 2006 that such a facility was available in respect of a widowed sister only if she resided with the employee or with the rest of his family members, implying thereby, that the sister of the petitioner did not live with him and, therefore, was not entitled to medical expenses. 2. Aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent to the reimbursement claimed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent the circular on which the petitioner has placed reliance is no longer in force as it has been withdrawn by another circular dated September 21, 2006, on the ground that the earlier circular did not have the approval of the Governing Body. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he shall be challenging the subsequent circular dated September 21, 2006. But that is a separate matter. The limited question, which has arisen before me, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of amount of Rs. 5,985/- which he has incurred when the previous circular was still in existence. 4. There is nothing in the circular dated July 28, 1992 to suggest that the widowed sister should be living with an employee for entitlement of reimbursement. 5,985/- which he has incurred when the previous circular was still in existence. 4. There is nothing in the circular dated July 28, 1992 to suggest that the widowed sister should be living with an employee for entitlement of reimbursement. Learned Counsel for the respondent has, of course, referred to Note III of Clause III of NWDA Medical Attendance Rules which lays down that Medical Attendance to the parents of an employee shall be allowed if they reside with the employee concerned or with the rest of the family members and if their monthly income does not exceed Rs. 500/-. Taking cue from this clause, it is sought to be contended that this condition mutatis mutandis shall also apply to the widowed sister. I do not agree. 5. I do not want to go into the genesis why in the case of parents it has b~en laid down that the Medical Attendance would be allowed if they reside with the employee or his family members, may be, it is for the reason that the parents in a given case may be living with another sibling. The mere fact that no such condition has been put in the case of a widowed sister is a good enough reason to allow the claim of the petitioner. This Court will not read in the Rules a condition where none exists, more so, when the benefit sought to be extended is for a benevolent purpose. In this view of the matter, I see no reason, why the petitioner should be deprived of his claim of reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 5,985/-. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the medical bill within four weeks from today. CM No. 11053/06 & CM No. 63/2007 These applications have become infructuous. The same are disposed of accordingly. Writ Petition allowed.