JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The final order rendered on 09.07.2021 in the instant Original Application, O.A.No.925 of 2021, is under challenge in the instant Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. A copy of the abovesaid impugned verdict of the Tribunal has been produced as Ext.P2 in this O.P. The petitioners in the O.P. are the respondents in the O.A. and the sole respondent in the O.P. is the sole applicant in the O.A. 2. The prayers in the instant Original Petition are as follows: “(i) to set aside Exhibit P2 Order dated 09.07.2021 in O.A.No.925/2021 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order; (ii) Any other order or direction as this Honourable Court that may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents 1 to 4 in the O.A. Though notice has been duly served by special messenger on the sole respondent herein/sole original applicant, there is no appearance for that party. Notice to the respondent herein was sent on 14.01.2022 and was duly served earlier, as can be seen from the endorsement made by the Registry on 21.01.2022. However, we waited till now to ascertain as to whether the said party would enter appearance in the meanwhile. Even now the sole respondent has not entered appearance. Hence earlier we have appointed Sri.Ashok B. Shenoy, learned Advocate of this Court as amicus curiae to assist in this case. We have heard the amicus curiae as well in this case. 4. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A.No.925 of 2021 are as follows: “1) Pass orders quashing Annexure A1, A2 & A3 ordered by 4 th, 3rd and 2nd respondents. Since it is violative of medical rules and fundamental rules of family as per the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Annexure 13) and followed by the Honourable High Court of Kerala (Annexure-A12). Since it is violative of medical rules and fundamental rules of family as per the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Annexure 13) and followed by the Honourable High Court of Kerala (Annexure-A12). 2) Issue orders to the second respondent directing that he may accept and reconsider the returned application for reimbursement sent through proper channel by the applicant within two weeks the application with documents enclosed Annexure A7 to and do proper process and reimburse the medical claim in accordance with the dictum laid in Annexure A13, Annexure A12, and pass eligible reimbursement urgently. 3) Issue such other orders that are deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 5. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P2 final order on 09.07.2021, whereby the main pleas in the O.A. have been allowed and the impugned orders at Annexures-A1 to A3 have been set aside and it has been ordered that the original applicant may submit application for medical reimbursement on account of the treatment of her ailing father along with supporting documents within two weeks and R1 in the O.A. (State Government) was directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders in the light of Annexure-A12 judgment dated 14.11.2017 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No.21627 of 2016 as well as Annexure-A13 judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of M.P. & Ors. v. M.P.Ojha and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 554 , etc. within one month. The abovesaid verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P2 that is under challenge in the present O.P. 6. A brief recital of the facts of this case would be relevant. The respondent herein will be referred hereinafter for convenience as the “original applicant/applicant”. The original applicant herein is holding the post of Assistant Professor in the Medical Education Department of the Government of Kerala. Her father is an elderly senior citizen, who was aged 79 years at the relevant time, had retired from service as a Government High School Teacher and according to the respondents in the O.A., at the relevant time he was getting pension of more than Rs.21,000/-p.m. Further that he was a chronic diabetic patient and his monthly pension was not sufficient to take care of his medical expenses, including intermittent and frequent hospitalizations. That the applicant's mother was an employee of the Travancore Titanium Products and was getting a pension amount of hardly Rs.1,000/-per month, that the applicant has only one sibling and her sister is a Higher Secondary School Teacher settled at Karunagapally, Kollam District, that the applicant is taking care of both her aged parents and that her father was wholly dependent on the applicant for the purpose of medical expenses, as he could not afford medical treatment from his meagre monthly pension, etc. It is also on record that the applicant's father had later died on 01.02.2020 due to various illnesses. The applicant had submitted a claim for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.2,02,024/-on account of the treatment expenses borne for the treatment of her father. It is the case of the applicant that her father, though a pensioner, was fully dependent on her and therefore, he would come within the definition of “Family” in Rule 3(e) of the Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960. Rule 3(e) of the Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960 provides as follows: “3. Definitions.-For the purpose of these rules.- xxx xxx (e)”Family” means and includes the wife or husband, children including adopted children, step-children, and parents wholly dependent upon the Government servant.” (emphasis supplied) Rule 4 stipulates about persons who are entitled to free medical attendance. Rule 4(3) in particular would stipulate that family of the Government servant are entitled to medical attendance, free of charge, to the same extent as the Government servant himself, except that they shall not be entitled to free medical attendance at their residence unless the authorised Medical Attendant is of the opinion that the patient cannot be removed without grave risk to his/her health, etc. The abovesaid claim for reimbursement of medical benefits was made by the applicant on the premise that her father, being wholly dependent on her, would come within the definition of “Family” as per Rule 3(e) and was therefore entitled for medical attendance, free of charge, in terms of Rule 4(3), etc. The abovesaid claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected by the respondents in the O.A., as per Annexure-A3 order dated 17.08.2020, on the ground that the father of the applicant, who is a pensioner, cannot be said to be wholly dependent on the applicant, as understood in Rule 3(e) of the abovesaid Rules. The abovesaid claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected by the respondents in the O.A., as per Annexure-A3 order dated 17.08.2020, on the ground that the father of the applicant, who is a pensioner, cannot be said to be wholly dependent on the applicant, as understood in Rule 3(e) of the abovesaid Rules. The Tribunal for giving relief in the instant case has mainly placed reliance on Annexure-A12 judgment dated 14.11.2017 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21627 of 2016 as well as on Annexure-A13 judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of M.P. & Ors. v. M.P.Ojha and Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 554 . As a matter of fact in Annexure-A12 judgment the learned Single Judge has mainly placed reliance on Annexure-A13 judgment of the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra. The main contention raised by the petitioners in the O.P. is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge at Annexure-A12 has already been set aside and reversed by a Division Bench of this Court, as per judgment rendered on 24.09.2019 in W.A.No.1313 of 2018 [arising out of Annexure-A12 W.P.(C) No.21627 of 2016]. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 24.09.2019 in W.A.No.1313 of 2018 has been reported as State of Kerala v. Sunu George, 2019 (4) KLT 288 (DB). 7. Initially, we propose to look into the aspects borne out from the judgment of the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra, (1998) 2 SCC 554 . Para 8 of the said judgment deals with the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958. Rule 2(d) thereof defines “Family” to mean as follows: “Rule 2(d) “Family” means - (i) The wife or husband of a Government servant; (ii) The parents, legitimate children including children adopted legally and step children of such Government servant residing with and wholly dependent on that Government servant.” Rules 3 to 10 thereof also provided for free medical treatment to Government servant and also for reimbursement of expenses incurred by him towards that. Para 10 of the said judgment deals with the provisions contained in the Fundamental Rules applicable in that case and Note to FR 9(b) stipulated as follows: “Note to FR 9(b) – Government servant's wife or husband, as the case may be, legitimate children, stepchildren, father, mother, stepmother, unmarried and widowed sisters, minor brothers who reside and pension equivalent to death-cum-retirement gratuity does not exceed Rs.250 p.m. may be deemed to be wholly dependent upon the government servant.” A reading of para No.2 of the said judgment would indicate that in the said case the father of the claimant therein was a retired Government servant, who at the relevant time was drawing pension of Rs.176/-with Rs.238/-as additional relief, thus totalling to Rs.414/-per month. Para 3 of the said decision would indicate that the claim for medical reimbursement in that case was made by the claimant, Government servant, on behalf of his father on 19.06.1987 on the ground that though his father was drawing a meagre pension, he was fully dependent on the applicant. The Apex Court in para No.13 of the said judgment in M.P.Ojha's case supra, (1998) 2 SCC 554 has held that the term “wholly dependent”, appearing in the said Rules, has to be given its due meaning from the context of the Rules and that to be wholly dependent would therefore include both financial and physical dependency and if the support required is physical and a member of the family is otherwise financially sound, he may not necessarily be wholly dependent and therein the father was 70 years of age and sick and it could not be said that he was not wholly dependent on his son and the son has to look after him in the old age and moreover the father was getting a meagre pensionary benefit of hardly Rs.414/-per month at that time. Hence, it was held that though the father was getting a meagre pension, he has to be treated as a person who was wholly dependent on his son who was a Government servant and therefore was eligible for medical reimbursement as per the State Rules concerned. 8. It is placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra, (1998) 2 SCC 554 that the learned Single Judge of this Court has rendered Annexure-A12 judgment dated 14.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No.21627 of 2016. 8. It is placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra, (1998) 2 SCC 554 that the learned Single Judge of this Court has rendered Annexure-A12 judgment dated 14.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No.21627 of 2016. As per Annexure-A12 judgment the learned Single Judge has held that that the parent of the claimant Government servant therein has to be treated as a person who was wholly dependent on the Government servant and therefore eligible to get medical attendance benefits as per the Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960. The State authorities being aggrieved by Annexure-A12 judgment had filed an intra-court appeal as Writ Appeal No.1313 of 2018 to impugn Annexure-A12 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21627 of 2016. The Division Bench has rendered a judgment on 24.09.2019, allowing the pleas of the appellant State in W.A.No.1313 of 2018, holding that, in the said case at Annexure-A12, the monthly pension given to the mother of the Government servant was Rs.22,180/-and, since the monthly pensionary amount given to the father of the Government servant in M.P.Ojha's case supra considered by the Apex Court was hardly Rs.414/-, it cannot be said that the mother of the Government servant in the case covered by Annexure-A12 can be a person who was wholly dependent on the Government servant even financially. Further that, since the mother of the Government servant therein was getting about Rs.22,180/-per month as pension, she cannot be said to be a person who was wholly dependent on the claimant Government servant as understood in Rule 3(e) of the Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960. Thus the Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment reported in 2019 (4) KLT 288 has set aside and reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Annexure-A12. Hence, it can be seen that one of the main grounds on the basis of which the Tribunal has rendered the present impugned judgment is by placing reliance on Annexure-A12 judgment of the learned Single Judge, which has already been reversed and set aside by the Division Bench as above. 9. So the next issue is as to whether the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra, (1998) 2 SCC 554 , would apply in the instant case. 9. So the next issue is as to whether the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra, (1998) 2 SCC 554 , would apply in the instant case. Earlier, we had noted that the monthly pensionary benefits that was secured by the father of the Government servant whose case was considered by the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra was Rs.414/-per month comprising of Rs.176/-of basic pension + Rs.238/-of dearness relief. Whereas the monthly pension of the parent of the Government servant, considered in Annexure-A12 judgment was about Rs.22,180/-per month. From a reading of the Apex Court judgment, we noted that, the figure of the total pensionary benefits secured by the father of the claimant in M.P.Ojha's case supra was Rs.414/-per month, as on the date of application [19.06.1987], whereas the pensionary figure of Rs.21,000/-per month, covered by Annexure-A12 is in the year 2020 or so. Hence, we wanted to ascertain as to whether the comparison of the figures in the two cases would be apt in as much as the figure mentioned in the Apex Court's judgment was as on 1987 whereas the one covered by Annexure-A12 was in the year 2020 or so. In the instant case the claim was for the year 2020. Therefore, we had directed the petitioners to furnish instructions to us as to what roughly would be the total pensionary benefits, as on 2020, for the corresponding figure of pensionary benefit coming to Rs.414/-as on 1987. The learned Government Pleader has consulted with the officials of the Finance Department and we are told that the total pensionary benefit of Rs.414/-in the year 1987, would roughly correspond to a basic pension of Rs.11,500/-+ dearness relief of Rs.805/-+ medical allowance of Rs.500/-thus totalling to Rs.12,305/-as on 2021 or so. Further, the learned Government Pleader has also been given instructions to submit that the pensionary benefits due in the year 2021, for a person like the deceased father of the present applicant, would now correspond to Rs.25,024/-per month. Further, the learned Government Pleader has also been given instructions to submit that the pensionary benefits due in the year 2021, for a person like the deceased father of the present applicant, would now correspond to Rs.25,024/-per month. In the light of these aspects, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in State of Kerala v. Sunu George, [W.A.No.1313 of 2018] 2019 (4) KLT 288 , is a reasonably plausible view of the matter, even applying the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in M.P.Ojha's case supra, (1998) 2 SCC 554 . We would follow the line of reasonings adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in Sunu George's case supra and hence, in view of the factual aspects in this case, as the applicant's father was getting about Rs.21,000/-per month as pensionary benefits in the year 2020, it cannot be said that he was wholly dependent on the applicant, financially. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P2 will stand set aside. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand disposed of.