CHUNNI LAL SONKAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dtd. 5/2/2018 whereby the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich has rejected the representation of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical bill of his son's treatment on the ground that petitioner's son was a practicing lawyer and, therefore, he was not included in the category of dependent as provided in the U.P. Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011.

(3.) Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was Constable in Civil Police and on 31/5/2017, he was retired from service. On 20/7/2013, son of the petitioner was met with a serious road accident. During treatment at Sahara Hospital, Lucknow both legs of the petitioner's son was amputated in order to save his life. The petitioner spent more than ten lac rupees in the treatment. At the relevant time, the petitioner was in service. The petitioner moved a representation on 28/7/2013 to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich for sanctioning of five lac rupees for treatment followed by reminder dtd. 19/9/2013. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich on 26/9/2013 to the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. When the claim of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.9334 (SS) of 2014 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed fresh Writ Petition No.5905 (SS) of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 19/12/2017 with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation and the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich was directed to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Bahraich vide impugned order dtd. 5/2/2018 has rejected the representation of the petitioner.