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 dated 05.02.2018 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 31.05.2017, he was retired from service. On 20.07.2013, 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 28.07.2013 to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich for sanctioning of five lac rupees for treatment followed by reminder dated 19.09.2013. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich on 26.09.2013 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by the respondents, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.9334 (SS) of 2014 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh.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 dated 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 dated 05.02.2018 has rejected the representation of the petitioner.
4. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a Government servant and, therefore, he is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 (in short "2011 Rules"). Son of the petitioner, who is permanently disabled in the accident, was fall within the definition of ''family' which has been defined in Rule 3(f). Vide notification dated 04.03.2014, Rule 3 (f) of 2011 Rules was amended and as per the amendments, a Government Servant is entitled for medical reimbursement against the treatment of his son till he is employed or till attains the age of 25 years or is married, whichever is earlier. The date of birth of the petitioner's son is 16.09.1989 and, therefore, he is below the age of 25 years at the time of accident. So far as the employment is concerned, son of the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in U.P. Bar Council on 18.07.2013 just before two days of the accident which cannot be said that son of the petitioner was in a gainful employment.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the respondent has adopted technical or pedantic approach. It is a matter of common knowledge that a person who has enrolled in U.P. Bar Council just before two days hardly has any independent source of income. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical bill cannot be denied merely on the ground of enrollment of his son as an Advocate. Learned Counsel has again submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a very mechanical manner without applying his mind and taking into consideration the entirety of the matter.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the definition of "beneficiary", son of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of beneficiary as he is major and is not dependent upon the petitioner. He is engaged in the profession of advocacy. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses. Learned Counsel has further submitted that since the petitioner is an Advocate is also not come within the definition of "family" of 2011 Rules.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that since the son of the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and enrolled under the Advocates Act in the U.P. Bar Council cannot be treated as a dependent of the petitioner as provided in 2011 Rules. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich. The writ petition devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties.
9. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich is contrary to the provisions of 2011 Rules. It is further contended by the petitioner that at the time accident son of the petitioner was unmarried and, therefore, son of the petitioner is fully covered under the definition of "Beneficiary" and "Family" of 2011 Rules. It is further contended by the petitioner that since 2011 Rules is a beneficial legislation, therefore, the provisions of the said Rules should not be interpreted in strict manner. Son of the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 just before two days of the accident which cannot be said that he was in gainful employment. It is again contended that vide notification dated 04.03.2014, an explanation has been appended to Rule 3(f) whereby a son who has not attained the age of 25 years and is unmarried is also included in the definition of "family". In contrary, the State has taken objection and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police Bahraich as undoubtedly son of the petitioner was practicing advocate at the time when the accident was taken place and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit as provided under the provisions of 2011 Rules.
10. After considering the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the main question arises for adjudication is that whether a person who is enrolled as an Advocate few days before in the Bar Council as per the Advocates Act can be treated as employed person?
11. In order to adjudicate the aforesaid controversy, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions of 2011 Rules. Section 3(f) of 2011 Rules reads as under:
"Section 3 (f) - "Family" means:-
i. Husband or wife as the case may be, of the member of the service; and ii. The parents, children, step-children, unmarried, divorced/ separated daughter, unmarried/ divorced/ separated sisters, minor brother(s), step mother."
12. Section 4 of 2011 Rules provides that all beneficiaries shall be entitled to free medical attendance and treatment in Government Hospital or medical college. Rule 6 provides that free medical treatment shall be available to a beneficiary only when he/ she produces the proof of his/ her identity through a numbered health card issued under the signature and seal of the Head of Office.
13. Vide notification dated 04.03.2014, Section 3(f) of 2011 Rules was amended, which reads as under:
"Section 3(f) "family" means:-
i. Husband or wife as the case may be, of the member of the service; and ii. The parents, children, step-children, unmarried/ divorced/ separated daughter, unmarried/ divorced/separated sisters, minor brother(s) and step mother, who are wholly dependent on the Government servant and are normally residing with the Government Servant.
Note 1 - Such members of a family will be considered wholly dependent whose income from all sources does not exceed the sum of Rs.3,500/- and the D.A. admissible on the basic pension of Rs.3500/- per month at the time of commencement of the treatment.
Note 2 - The age limit for the dependents would be as follows:
(1) Son - Till the time he is employed or attaining the age of 25 years or till he is married, whichever is earlier.
(2) Daughter - Till the time she is employed or she is married, whichever is earlier.
(3) Son who is suffering from permanent mental or physical disability - till lifetime.
(4) Dependent and divorced/ separated from husband/ widow daughters and dependent unmarried/ divorced/ separated from husband/ widow sisters - Till lifetime.
(5) Minor brothers - Till he attains majority."
14. The Rules provides that a Government Servant is entitled for medical reimbursement against the treatment of his son till he starts earning or attained the age of 25 years or gets married whichever is earlier. In the instant case, son of the petitioner has not attained the age of 25 years and is unmarried but son of the petitioner was enrolled in the Bar Council as an Advocate just before two days of the accident. There are no material on record which shows any financial earning by son of the petitioner as an Advocate.
15. The claim of the petitioner was denied only on the ground that since son of the petitioner was enrolled in the Bar Council, therefore, he is not entitled for any medical reimbursement against the treatment of his son.
16. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has not been disputed that son of the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate just prior to two days of the accident but while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, there is no pleading in the counter affidavit nor there is any finding in the impugned order to show the earning of son of the petitioner in two days. Mere registration of son of the petitioner as an Advocate just before two days of the accident cannot be said that son of the petitioner was starting earning and has become 'financially dependent'. The intention of the legislation is to defend the dependent of any Government employee till he/ she started earning. The State failed to show any evidence which proves that son of the petitioner was started earning after enrollment as an Advocate.
17. The U.P. Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 is a beneficial peace of legislation and it is a settled law that interpretation of such statutes should be very liberal. Beneficial legislation is a statute which purports to confer a benefit on individuals or a class of persons. Such benefit is given by interpreting the statute liberally and thus beneficial legislation should be interpreted liberally in a purposive manner.
18. It is a peculiar case where son of the petitioner was met with an accident just before two days of his enrollment as an Advocate and during treatment both the legs of the injured was amputated in order to save his life and was 100% disabled. The respondent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner on technical ground without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere enrollment as an Advocate just before two days of the accident, which cannot be said that he was in gainful employment, so he cannot debar the son of the petitioner from the definition of 'dependent children'.
19. In view of the above fact and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the argument of the State and the finding recorded by the respondent authority in the impugned order while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich is set aside.
21. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenditure in the light of the aforesaid observations and pass appropriate orders, if there is no other legal impediment as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date:- 19.05.2021 akverma