PRASHANT SINGH BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the respondent No.2, the Director of Medical Education, M.P., Bhopal, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking quashment of the said order and a direction against the respondents to grant sanction to reimburse the amount of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on account of ailment of his mother. It is contended that the petitioner being an employee, working as Technical Member District Project Supporting Unit of District Poverty Initiative Project (hereinafter referred to as DPIP for brevity) under the Rural Development Department, was entitled to the said benefit in terms of the provisions of M.P. Civil Services Medical Assistance Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). It is contended that in terms of the provisions made under the said Rules, the petitioner was entitled to the reimbursement of the amount so incurred by him for the treatment of his mother after making of a reference for such treatment by medical authorities of the State, therefore, only on lame excuses that the mother of the petitioner was a retired employee and a pensioner of the State, she would not be entitled to grant of permission of the said reimbursement, the rejection of such a reimbursement claim was improper.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is working in the services of the aforesaid project. From the facts as have been stated in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on 12.1.1987 in the project in Apex Bank on the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was sent to work on deputation to DPIP, which is a World Bank Aided Project run by the State of Madhya Pradesh. For the said project, the Rules made by the State Government governing the services of the State employees are made applicable. It is contended by the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and on attaining the age of superannuation, she has retired with effect from 31.12.2001. The mother of the petitioner was receiving pension. The mother of the petitioner was suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) and was referred for treatment to Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai. She was being treated at Rewa and the said Medical Officer referred the mother of the petitioner to aforesaid Hospital. Looking to such a situation, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to take treatment for his mother out of the State. Such an application was referred to the respondent No.2, but the same has been rejected by the order under challenge, therefore, the writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that in terms of the provisions of the Rules, the word 'dependent' has been interpreted by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, which order has further been upheld by the Apex Court, therefore, now on such a lame excuse, the claim of petitioner could not have been rejected. The mother of the petitioner was getting a meagre pension and, therefore, she was wholly dependent on the petitioner. That being so, the expression 'wholly dependent" as prescribed in the Rules would be applicable and the petitioner would be entitled to get the reimbursement of medical expenses. This being so, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.