R.S.D. BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired as Treasury Officer from the Treasury Office, Sirsa. The son of the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Bansal who was studying in M.A. in the subject of Public Administration, in the Panjab University in the year 1997, was staying in University Hostel. It is at that time he met with an accident in the University Campus in January 1997 at night. He suffered multiple injuries on head and fractured his left forearm. He was admitted in P.G.I. Chandigarh and remained under treatment from January 14, 1997 to February 4, 1997. He had also been subjected to certain surgeries. Consequently, lot of expenditure was required to be incurred, which was paid accordingly.

(2.) The petitioner lodged a claim of Rs. 37285.30 as medical bills and asked for reimbursement accordingly. The claim has been supported by prescriptions, vouchers, photo copies of the discharge card and also the receipts for having made the aforestated payments. The case of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated April 8, 1997 on the ground that the son of the petitioner had attained the age of majority at the time of accident and, therefore, as per the instructions dated March 26, 1997, April 8, 1997, copy Annexure P3, the petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement of the aforesaid claim. A letter dated April 21, 1997 had been sent to the concerned quarters for reconsideration on the premises that the son of the petitioner was dependent upon him at the time of suffering the injury and that the expenditures have been incurred by the petitioner. The State reiterated its stand and has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide communication dated April 22, 1997, copy Annexure P4. The second representation was again rejected vide communication dated 27.8.1997, copy Annexure P6. Similarly, the third representation met the same fate vide communication dated 19.1.1998, copy Annexure P8.

(3.) The stand of the State is that as per the Government instructions which have been impugned before this Court, only the minor children have been accepted as dependents, as such, the Government has correctly rejected the claim of medical reimbursement in respect of son of the petitioner who had attained the age of maturity as per his own admission. Thus, the stand of the Government is sustainable under law and the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any reimbursement.