HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in the present petition is for quashing the Annexure P-3 and clause (iii) in Annexure P/1 and a direction to the respondents to pay the amount of medical reimbursement incurred on the treatment of his son. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Advocate General on regular basis on 4.6.1997 in the pay scale of '4125-5600 plus special pay of Rs. 500/- in lieu of fee from the date of assuming charge of the post. The appointment letter is Annexure P/1 and as per clause (ii) of the same the appointment of the petitioner was mentioned to be contractual, purely temporary but as a whole time Government employee and Punjab Civil Services Rules were applicable in matter of leave and travelling allowance. The appointment letter(Annexure P/1) is as follows:-

(2.) It was also mentioned that his appointment was against a non pensionable post. He continued to hold the post of Assistant Advocate General till 17.04.2002 Vide memo dated 17.4.2002 His Excellency, the Governor of Punjab accepted the resignation of the petitioner amongst other law officers working in the office of Advocate General Punjab. The son of the petitioner by birth was diagnosed as suffering from ventricular septum defect (a cardiac emergency) and was advised immediate surgery. He was operated in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi on 27.4.1999 and the petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,66,494/- on his treatment. His claim for medical reimbursement was rejected on the ground that the same was not admissible in view of Rule 1(2) of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940. The same is reproduced here as under:-

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioner that his letter of appointment not only mentioned the appointment to be in a regular scale but also that the appointment was as a whole time Govt. Employee. He was also granted regular scale/increments as well as the revised pay scales on revision of the scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the date of his joining. Thus, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner is in the realm of Master Servant relationship and not that of contract of personal service. The Government being a welfare State cannot deny the basic facility of medical reimbursement which constitutes an integral part of the right to life.