Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1822 (ALL)

Brijesh Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-07-31

J.J.MUNIR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Secretary, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj dated February the 4th, 2023, rejecting the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on his wife’s treatment. 2. The petitioner is a retired Junior Engineer, who was in the employ of the erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad. He retired on 31.07.2017 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad has since been re-named as the Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj, and the petitioner, therefore, is a retired employee of the last named Authority. The Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the PDA'. 3. The petitioner has disclosed in minute detail facts relating to his recruitment in the PDA, his regularization in service, the amendments made to rules affecting his service at different points of time, but all that is unnecessary for the purpose of the issue that arises in this petition. What is of significance is that while the petitioner was in service of the PDA, the Under Secretary, Department of Planning and Development, Government of U.P., addressed a memo dated 17.04.2012 to the Vice-Chairmen of all the Development Authorities, established under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act of 1973'), conveying the Government's inclination to extend the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 (for short, 'the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011') to employees of the Development Authorities. All the Vice-Chairmen of Development Authorities across the State were required to give their consent, indicating that the Development Authority is capable and willing to bear the financial burden of adopting the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 for employees of their respective Development Authorities. This was true of the PDA also, the Vice-Chairman whereof had to consent in order that the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 would become available to the employees. A reminder on March the 5th, 2013 was addressed by the Under Secretary, Government of U.P. to the Vice-Chairmen of Development Authorities across the State, asking them to send their consent for adoption of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011. 4. The PDA, in response to the Memoranda dated 17.04.2012 and 05.03.2013, last mentioned, considered the matter in their 107th Board Meeting held on 06.04.2013. 4. The PDA, in response to the Memoranda dated 17.04.2012 and 05.03.2013, last mentioned, considered the matter in their 107th Board Meeting held on 06.04.2013. The proposal to apply the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 to the PDA was discussed and unanimously accepted by the Board of the PDA vide Resolution No.1601 dated 06.04.2013. The said resolution that dealt with Proposal No.7 of the day, is on record. The Vice-Chairman of the PDA vide memo dated 24th October, 2013 duly informed the Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Government of U.P. that the Board of the PDA have unanimously resolved and adopted the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 for the benefit of their employees in their meeting held on 06.04.2013. The petitioner says that the Department of Housing and Urban Planning has not passed any orders, accepting or approving the resolution of the PDA dated 06.04.2013. Rule 2 of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 provides for the application of the Rules and reads: “2. Application–They shall apply to– (a) All Government Servants while they are on duty, or on leave or under suspension and their family. (b) Retired Government Servants and to their family and in case of deceased Government Servants such members of their family as are eligible for family pension.” 5. The petitioner says that after adoption of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 by the PDA vide resolution dated 06.04.2013, all provisions of the said Rules would be applicable and enure to the benefit of the employees as well as retired employees and their dependent family members. 6. During the second wave of the CoVid-19 pandemic, the petitioner's wife, Smt. Kusum Singh was diagnosed positive for Covid-19 on 15.04.2021. Four days later, on 19th April, 2021, her blood oxygen saturation sank to a dangerous level. On medical advice, she had to be admitted to a dedicated Covid Hospital, to wit, Vineeta Hospital, Phaphamau, Prayagraj. Smt. Kusum Singh was treated and finally discharged on the 6th of May, 2021. The medical bill involved in the treatment ran into a figure of Rs.2,75,000/-. The petitioner moved an application on 23rd July, 2021 along with a summary of the bill, the medical bill, the discharge summary and the follow up prescriptions relating to his wife for her CoVid-19 treatment before the Chairman of the PDA with a request for reimbursement of the medical bills. The petitioner moved an application on 23rd July, 2021 along with a summary of the bill, the medical bill, the discharge summary and the follow up prescriptions relating to his wife for her CoVid-19 treatment before the Chairman of the PDA with a request for reimbursement of the medical bills. No action on the said application was taken by the Vice-Chairman of the PDA. The petitioner then moved a representation dated 16th October, 2022 before the Chairman, PDA, carrying the same request. The Chairman marked and forwarded the petitioner's representation to the PDA for appropriate action. The Secretary, PDA by the order impugned dated 04.02.2023 rejected the petitioner's application for reimbursement of expenses incurred in the medical treatment aforesaid on the ground that though the PDA had unanimously adopted the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 for their employees in the meeting dated 06.04.2013, but so long as the said Rules were not extended by a decision of the Government to the PDA, no reimbursement could be granted. The said order was passed on 4th February, 2023 and impugned in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Arun Kumar on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The short case taken there is that despite the PDA adopting the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 and accepting the financial burden therefor, the State Government have not ratified the aforesaid decision, making the Rules aforesaid available for the benefit of the PDA employees. It is the PDA's case that in the absence of ratification by the State Government of the PDA Board's resolution and notifying the aforesaid Medical Attendance Rules for the employees of the PDA, the same cannot be enforced. It is pleaded on behalf of the PDA that under Section 56 of the Act of 1973, the Development Authority, with previous approval of the State Government, can make regulations, not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules for administration of the Authority. It is emphasized that sub-Section (2)(c) of Section 56 further contemplates that regulations framed under sub-Section (1) may relate to salaries, allowance and conditions of service of the Secretary, Chief Accounts Officer and other officers and employees. In view of the said provisions, adoption of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 by the Board of the PDA would not extend the benefit of the Rules to the PDA employees. 8. Heard Mr. In view of the said provisions, adoption of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 by the Board of the PDA would not extend the benefit of the Rules to the PDA employees. 8. Heard Mr. Satyendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced two submissions in criticism of the impugned order dated 04.02.2023. He submits in the first place that the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 come to life upon their adoption by the PDA Board ipso facto. There is no requirement for the Board's resolution to be ratified or accepted in any manner by the State Government. He has drawn the Court's attention to the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1973 to submit that the said provision refers to the power of a Development Authority to make regulations. In the event, a Development Authority, like the PDA, wish to make regulations, as envisaged under Section 56 of the Act of 1973, previous approval of the State Government, before exercise of the power, is necessary. Mr. Satyendra Singh submits that in the present case, the power to make regulations by the PDA has not been invoked at all while accepting the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011, already framed by the State Government for government servants. 10. The other submission, on the foot of which learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order, is that after notification of the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 (for short, 'the Centralised Service Rules, 1985'), the service conditions as well as retirement benefits of employees/ex-employees, belonging to the centralised services of Development Authorities, are governed by the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 and also by the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralized Services Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011 (for short, 'the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011'). The learned Counsel for the petitioner has called attention to Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985, which reads: “37. Regulation of other matters– (1) If any dispute or difficulty arises regarding-interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the same shall be referred to the Government whose decision shall be final. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has called attention to Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985, which reads: “37. Regulation of other matters– (1) If any dispute or difficulty arises regarding-interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the same shall be referred to the Government whose decision shall be final. (2) In regard to the matters not covered by these rules or by special orders, the members of service shall be governed by the rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to U.P. Government servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State. (3) Matters not covered by sub-rules (1) and (2) above shall be governed by such orders as the Government may deem proper to issue.” (emphasis by Court) 11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 do not provide for medical benefits, sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the said Rules would attract application of rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to U.P. Government Servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State. The submission on this score, therefore, is that the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 would apply by virtue of Rule 37(2) of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985, even if the PDA were not to adopt by a resolution of the Board, the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 applicable to U.P. Government servants. 12. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, have supported the impugned order. 13. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by both parties. 14. It would be gainful to refer to certain provisions of the Act of 1973 and some of the statutory Rules, governing the service conditions of employees of the Development Authorities, including the PDA. Section 4 of the Act of 1973 provides: “Section 4. The Development Authority (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, constitute for the purposes of this Act, an Authority to be called the Development Authority for any development area. Section 4 of the Act of 1973 provides: “Section 4. The Development Authority (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, constitute for the purposes of this Act, an Authority to be called the Development Authority for any development area. (2) The Authority shall be a body corporate, by the name given to it in the said notification, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. (3) The Authority in respect of a development area which includes the whole or any part of a city as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, shall consist of the following members, namely— (a) a Chairman to be appointed by the State Government: (b) a Vice-Chairman to be appointed by the State Government: (c) the Secretary to the State Government, incharge of the Department in which, for the time being, the business relating to the Development Authorities is transferred, ex-officio; (d) the Secretary to the State Government, incharge of the Department of Finance, ex- officio. (e) the Chief Town and Country Planner, Uttar Pradesh, ex-officio; (f) the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam established under the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, ex-officio; (g) the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, ex-officio; (h) the District Magistrate of every district anypart of which is included in the development area, ex-officio; (i) four members to be elected by Sabhasads of the, Nagar Mahapalika for the said city from amongst themselves: Provided that any such member shall cease to hold office as such as soon as he ceases to be Sabhasad of the Municipal Corporation: (j) such other members not exceeding three as maybe nominated by the State Government. (4) The appointment of the Vice-Chairman shall bewhole time. (5) The Vice-Chairman shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Authority such salaries and allowance and be governed by such conditions of service as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government in this behalf. (4) The appointment of the Vice-Chairman shall bewhole time. (5) The Vice-Chairman shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Authority such salaries and allowance and be governed by such conditions of service as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government in this behalf. (6) A member referred to in clause (c), clause (d), clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (3) may instead of attending a meeting of the Authority himself depute an officer, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the department, in the case of a member referred to in clause (c) or clause (d) and below the rank of Town Planner in the case of a member referred to in clause (e) and not below the rank of Superintending Engineer in the case of a member referred to in clause (f) to attend the meeting. The officer so deputed shall have the right to take part in the proceedings of the meeting and shall also have the right to vote. (7) The Authority in respect of a development area other than that mentioned in Sub-section (3) shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and not less than five and not more than eleven such other members, including at least one member from the Municipal Boards and Notified Area Committees having each jurisdiction in the development area, who shall hold office for such period and on such terms and conditions, as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government in this behalf: Provided that the Vice-Chairman or a member other than an ex-officio member of the Authority may at any time by writing under his hand addressed to the State Government resign his office and on such resignation being accepted shall be deemed to have vacated his office. (8) No act or proceedings of the Authority shall be invalid by reason of the existence of any vacancy in, or defect in the constitution of the Authority.” 15. Section 5 of the Act of 1973 may also be quoted with profit: “Section 5. Staff of the Authority (1) The State Government may appoint two suitable persons respectively as the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority who shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the Authority or its Vice-Chairman. Staff of the Authority (1) The State Government may appoint two suitable persons respectively as the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority who shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the Authority or its Vice-Chairman. (2) Subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government, the Authority may appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine their designations and grades. (3) The Secretary, the Chief Accounts Officer and other Officers and employees of the Authority shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Authority such salaries and allowances and shall be governed by such salaries and allowances and shall be governed by other conditions of service as may be determined by regulations made in that behalf.” 16. Section 5A of the Act of 1973 was brought in by amendment vide U.P. Act No.21 of 1985, and provides for the creation of centralised services in the Development Authorities. Section 5-A provides as follows: “5-A. Creation of Centralised Services.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 5 or in any other law for the time being in force, the State Government may at any time, by notification, create one or more ‘Development Authorities Centralised Services’ for such posts, other than the posts mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 59, as the State Government may deem fit, common to all the Development Authorities and may prescribe the manner and conditions of recruitment to, and the terms, and conditions of service of persons appointed to. such service. (2) Upon creation of a Development Authorities Centralised Service, a person serving on the posts included in such service immediately before such creation; not being a person governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966, or serving on deputation, shall, unless he opts otherwise, be absorbed in such service— (a) finally, if he was already confirmed in his post, and (b) provisionally, if he was holding temporary or officiating appointment. (3) A person referred to in Sub-section (2) may, within three months from the creation of such Development Authorities Centralised Service communicate to the Government in the Housing Department, his option not to be absorbed in such Centralised Service, failing which he shall be deemed to have opted for final or provisional, as the case may be, absorption in such Centralised Service. (4) Suitability of a person absorbed provisionally, for final absorption in a Development Authorities Centralised Service, shall be examined in the manner prescribed and if found suitable he shall be absorbed finally. (5) The services of an employee who opts against absorption or who is not found suitable for final absorption, shall stand determined and he shall, without prejudice to his claim to any leave, pension, provident fund or gratuity which he would have been entitled to be, entitled to receive as compensation from the Development Authority concerned, an amount equal to— (a) three months’ salary if he was a permanent employee: (b) one month’s salary, if he was a ‘temporary employee. Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub section, the term ‘salary’ includes dearness allowance, personal pay and special pay, if any. (6) It shall be, lawful for the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf, to transfer any person holding any post in a Development Authorities Centralised Service from one Development Authority to another.” 17. It is also important to refer to Section 20 of the Act of 1973, which occurs in Chapter VII, dealing with finance, accounts and audit. Section 20 aforesaid is quoted below: “Section 20. Fund of the Authority (1) The Authority shall have and maintain its own fund to which shall be credited— (a) all moneys received by the Authority from the State Government by way of grants, loans, advances or otherwise; (b) all moneys borrowed by the Authority from sources other than the State Government by way of loans or debentures; (c) all fees tolls and charges received by the Authority under this Act; (d) all moneys received by the Authority from the disposal of lands, buildings and other properties, movable and immovable; and (e) all moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or from any other source. (2) The fund shall be applied towards meeting the expenses incurred by Authority administration of this Act and for in no the other purposes. (3) Subject to any directions of the State Government, the Authority may keep in current account of any Scheduled Bank such sum of money out of its fund as it may think necessary for meeting its expected current requirements and invest any surplus money in such manner as it thinks fit. (4) The State Government may, after due appropriation made by Legislature by law in that behalf, make such grants advances and loans to the Authority as that Government may deem necessary for the performance of the functions of the Authority under this Act and all grants, loans and advances made shall be on such terms and condition’s as the State Government may determine. (5) The Authority may borrow money by way of loans or debentures from such sources (other than the State Government) and on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the State Government. (6) The Authority shall maintain a sinking fund for the repayment of moneys borrowed under sub section (5), and shall pay every year into the sinking fund such sum as may be sufficient for repayment within the period fixed of all moneys so borrowed. (7) The sinking fund or any part thereof shall be applied in, or towards, the discharge of the loan for which such fund was created, and until such loan is wholly discharged it shall not be applied for any other purpose.” 18. After introduction of Section 5-A, amending the Act of 1973, the State Government (vide notification dated 25.06.1985) notified the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 and the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, already introduced and referred to hereinbefore. 19. So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, it is true that the power to make regulations vested in the PDA under Section 56 of the Act of 1973, can be exercised with previous approval of the State Government and with the limitation that the regulations made are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder. Clause (c) of sub-Section (2) of Section 56 speaks about salaries, allowance and conditions of service of the Secretary, Chief Accounts Officer and other officers and employees. Clause (c) of sub-Section (2) of Section 56 speaks about salaries, allowance and conditions of service of the Secretary, Chief Accounts Officer and other officers and employees. But, the moot question is whether the PDA, or for that matter any Authority established under the Act of 1973, while acting by its resolution to extend the benefit of any existing Rules applicable to government servants, to the employees of the Development Authority, does so in the exercise of its power to make regulations under Section 56. This Court does not think so. The term 'Rules' has a definite connotation under the Act of 1973 and the power to make Rules is vested under Section 55 of the Act of 1973 exclusively in the State Government. If the PDA, or for that matter, any Development Authority, by virtue of Section 55 of the Act of 1973, cannot make Rules, it cannot adopt Rules framed by the State Government for government servants for the benefit of its employees, if one were to go strictly by the connotation of the term 'Rules', occurring in Section 55. There is hardly any difference in making Rules or adopting them, because the power to make Rules is traceable to Section 55 of the Act of 1973. That power is exercisable exclusively by the State Government; not by the Development Authorities. The making of Rules or adopting ones, already made by the Government, is only a difference in the mode of exercise of power; nothing else. 20. Notwithstanding the aforesaid remarks, this Court does not wish to pronounce on the said issue, inasmuch as the controversy involved in the present petition can be decided on the other issue raised. Since the rights of parties can be determined with reference to the other issue, the question is left open to be decided in a suitable matter. 21. The other alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is founded on the provisions of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985. These Rules have been framed by the State Government, wherefor they have ample authority by virtue of Section 55 read with Section 5-A of the Act of 1973. 21. The other alternate submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is founded on the provisions of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985. These Rules have been framed by the State Government, wherefor they have ample authority by virtue of Section 55 read with Section 5-A of the Act of 1973. Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 has been referred to hereinabove and sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 provides that in matters not covered by these Rules or special orders, the members of the service, which means the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralised Service, shall be governed by Rules, Regulations and Orders applicable generally to U.P. Government servants serving in connection with affairs of the State, almost to borrow the phraseology of Rule 37(2). 22. The Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011 also framed in the exercise of power under Section 55 of the Act of 1973 do not provide anything relating to reimbursement of medical expenses, or for that matter anything to do with medical expenses at all. The Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011 deal with pension, gratuity, including death-cum-retirement pension, family pension and its commutation. It is perhaps for this reason that the State Government required the Development Authorities, including the PDA to adopt the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 framed by the State Government for government servants. Admittedly, the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 provide for reimbursement of medical expenses, not only for a retired government servant, but their family as well and such members of a deceased government servant's family, as are eligible for family pension. 23. Now, assuming that the Board's resolution, adopting the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011, does not qualify as a Regulation under Section 56 of the Act of 1973 and by its own force, cannot be a Rule under Section 55, because the rule making power is not available with the Development Authorities, but with the State Government exclusively, the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 make the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 applicable to members of the centralised services as defined under sub-Rule 1(vi) read with sub-Rule 1(vii) of Rule 2 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985. 24. 24. Now, the position that the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 take within their fold not only conditions of service of members, who are in harness, but also the rights and privileges of retired members is more than evident from the provisions of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 34 of the said Rules. Rule 34(4) provides: “34. Age of retirement.– (4) A retiring pension and/or other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules applicable to every officer or other employee who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule.” 25. The aforesaid provisions make available to a retired employee of the centralised service a retiring pension and/ or other benefits, if these are available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules applicable to an employee. After enactment of the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, pension and gratuity, including family pension are provided for by the said Rules in all detail as to entitlement, computation, commutation of pension etc. The Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, however, do not govern the subject of medical reimbursement or provide about it. Therefore, by virtue of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 34 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 while entitlement to pension and gratuity, including family pension would be governed by the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, the entitlement to medical reimbursement clearly follows on the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 by virtue of which the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 become applicable to retired members of the centralised service, including their family. Since the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 does not define what the term 'family' would imply in relation to a member of the centralised service, the definition of 'family' provided under the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 would apply. 26. It is particularly so, as already said, that a reading of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 34 and sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 makes it evident that the rights of retired members of the centralised service and their family with regard to their entitlement for medical reimbursement, would be governed by the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011. The Medical Attendance Rules on their own terms by virtue of Rule 2(b), quoted in this judgment, apply to retired government servants and to their families. The Medical Attendance Rules on their own terms by virtue of Rule 2(b), quoted in this judgment, apply to retired government servants and to their families. The provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 and the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 read in the context of Rule 34(4) of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 form an integreted scheme to advance the welfare of the members of the centralised service and their family. Therefore, the construction to be placed upon them has to be one, which advances the purpose rather than inhibiting it by a pedantic constrict. 27. Much before the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011 were enacted, the question about entitlement to pension of members of centralised service under the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 arose before a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Praveen Kumar Agarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) ILR 1 All 21. Though, their Lordships found for the retired members of the centralised service a right to receive pension on a plain reading of Section 5-A read with Section 24 of the Act of 1973, the right was held traceable also to the provisions of Rule 37(3) and Rule 34(4) of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 read with the provisions contained in the Financial Handbook and Civil Services Regulations, entitling employees of the State Government to pension. In Praveen Kumar Agarwal (supra), it was held by their Lordships of the Division Bench: “40. There is one other aspect of the matter. Rule 34 of the Rules, covers all the employees of the Development Authorities with regard to retiral pension and other retiral benefits. Rule 37 categorically provides that matter not covered under Sub-Rule (1) and (2), shall be governed by all such orders as the State Government may deem proper. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 37 has been meant to fill up vacuum. Sub-rule (2) specifically provides that matters not covered by these Rules or by special orders, the members of service shall be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Orders applicable generally, to U.P. Government Servant serving in connection with the affairs of the State. 41. The two Government orders dated 4.3.1983 and 17.3.1983 seem to have been issued to clarify the position keeping in view the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37. 41. The two Government orders dated 4.3.1983 and 17.3.1983 seem to have been issued to clarify the position keeping in view the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37. Admittedly, employees of State Government are being paid pension in pursuance of provisions contained in Financial Handbook and Civil Services Regulations. Accordingly, unless the separate provision is made, the petitioners case shall be governed by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of 1985 rules.” 28. Until time, that Praveen Kumar Agarwal was decided, there were no separate rules governing the entitlement to retirement pension for members of the centralised service, and, therefore, in the concluding remarks in Paragraph No.41 of the report in Praveen Kumar Agarwal, it was said that the petitioner's case shall be governed by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985. At that time, by virtue of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 aforesaid, the right to receive pension for members of the centralised service would be the same as those of State Government employees serving in connection with affairs of the State under the rules applicable to them, be it the Financial Handbook or the Civil Service Regulations. Now, that position stands changed with the framing of the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, which apply to a retired member of the service by virtue of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 34. 29. However, so far as medical reimbursement is concerned, the position would be the same as it was before their Lordships in Praveen Kumar Agarwal and the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985, would ipso facto attract the provisions of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 to retired members of the centralised service and their families for the purpose of reimbursement of medical expenses. 30. More or less on similar line of reasoning, a learned Single Judge of this Court, when confronted with the issue in Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Lko., 2023:AHC-LKO:32771, regarding reimbursement of medical bills of a retired employee of the centralised service, who had claimed against the Banda Development Authority, held: “15. Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Lko., 2023:AHC-LKO:32771, regarding reimbursement of medical bills of a retired employee of the centralised service, who had claimed against the Banda Development Authority, held: “15. The second issue with regard to payment of medical bills, it is clear from the records that the benefits which were accorded by the State Government to their employees were adopted by the respondent no.2 on 18.11.2015, thus, there is no reason why the respondents will not pay the medical reimbursement allowance which have been duly verified by the CMO and are pending before the respondent no.1……” 31. This Court is, therefore, of opinion that the petitioner has clearly established his right to medical reimbursement of expenses incurred in his wife's treatment, about which there is no issue that she falls within the definition of his ‘family’ under the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 applicable in the case. 32. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, PDA (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Let a mandamus issue to the Vice-Chairman, PDA and the Secretary, PDA to reimburse the medical bill submitted by the petitioner for his wife's treatment on 23.07.2021, after verification in accordance with law and the Rules applicable, within a month of receipt of a copy of this order. 33. Costs easy.