Full Text
# 30 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
COLLEGE OF VOCATIONAL STUDIES ..... Appellant
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ratan K. Singh, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Lawania and
Mr. Aishwary Tiwari, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate with Mr. Prang Newmai and Ms. Slomita Rai, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate with Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate for R-3
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
1. The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1865 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assails the judgment dated 28.08.2017, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5824/2008 titled as ‘Kumar Ram Krishna vs. 2017:DHC:7456-DB College of Vocational Studies & Ors.’, whereby, whilst allowing the said writ petition, it has been directed that the appellant shall consider the medical bills submitted by the respondent No.1 from time to time; in accordance with the Rules, and shall not reject the same on the ground that the latter’s mother was not dependent on him.
2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are elaborated hereunder:-
(i) The respondent No.1 joined the appellant college as a Lecturer on 13.3.2002 and was promoted to Senior Lecturer Grade in October, 2005;
(ii) It is the case of respondent No.1 that his mother, who is admittedly a housewife; and has no independent income, has been residing with him from the date he joined the services of the appellant college and was solely dependent on him for her physical, as well as, financial support;
(iii) Predicated on the documents filed by him at the time of his appointment, which are annexed at Page No.60 to the present appeal, the respondent No.1 informed the appellant college that his mother Smt. Asha Singh was wholly dependent on him;
(iv) Admittedly, the mother of respondent No.1 was severely affected by serious heart ailments and had to be admitted to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘AIIMS’) on 12.06.2007. A claim for medical reimbursement was forwarded to the appellant by the respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 03.10.2007 along with a declaration to the effect that his mother is wholly dependent on him and has been residing with him since he joined the said appellant college;
(v) The mother of respondent No.1 was once again admitted to
AIIMS from 15.10.2007 to 24.10.2007, on which occasion an open heart surgery requiring the replacement of aortic valve was conducted on her. The respondent No.1 furnished two bills amounting to Rs.98,975/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively, seeking reimbursement of the said payments disbursed by him to the hospital authorities for his mother’s treatment. However, the appellant has not reimbursed even a single penny of the said amount to the respondent No.1 till date;
(vi) Thereafter, the respondent No.1’s mother again became critical and had to be re-admitted to AIIMS from 16.06.2008 to 30.06.2008, during which period she was also kept in emergency ward for a few days; and
(vii) Even thereafter, since her medical condition did not improve, she had to be admitted to AIIMS once again on 03.07.2008 till 06.07.2008 and in view of her deteriorating medical condition, thereafter also, had to be rushed to Batra Hospital; which is in the immediate vicinity of the respondent No.1’s residence. At the Batra Hospital, the mother of the respondent No.1 underwent the process of stunting, during which process, her condition became critical and she was rendered unconscious necessitating her treatment to be carried out in the Medical Intensive Care Unit.
3. The respondent No.1 has furnished bills to the extent of Rs.2.[5] lakhs to the appellant college for the aforesaid hospitalization, as well as, bills for further treatment in this behalf. Unfortunately, all attempts made by the respondent No.1 to secure reimbursement have been in vain.
4. Eventually, after running from pillar to post for long years, the respondent No.1 was constrained to institute the subject writ petition, being W.P.(Civil) No.5824/2008 titled as ‘Kumar Ram Krishna vs. College of Vocational Studies & Ors.’ before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be allowed, as afore-stated, by the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2017.
5. Mr. Anurag Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant college would canvass before us that the CGH Scheme is not applicable to the University of Delhi; and the existent Rules provide for family of an employee, including his mother, to be treated as a dependent if the latter resides with the former. Mr. Mathur would invite our attention to a copy of the service book of the respondent No.1 to urge that the latter had declared the permanent residence of his mother at Bihar and further failed to give an yearly declaration showing his mother as his dependent, which disentitles him from any reimbursement of the latter’s medical bills.
6. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the appellant college, it would be necessary to extract the relevant Rules adopted by University of Delhi in this behalf, which read as follows: “Conditions of Dependency:- For availing medical facilities under CGH Scheme, parents, sister, widowed sisters, widowed/divorced separated daughters, brothers, step mother and children shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government Servant if they are normally residing with him and their income from all sources including pension and pension equivalent of DCRG benefit does not exceed Rs.1500/- p.m. Notes: (i) In case of pensioners, pension before commutation is to be taken as income. However, the dearness relief of pension sanctioned after December, 1995 and dearness pension granted w.e.f. 01.04.2004 is not to be considered for the purpose of income limit of Rs.1500/-
(ii) As an exception, parents can live away from the employee in another station with other members of the family.
(iii) The declaration regarding the income and the residence of parents should be furnished by the Government Servant concerned once in the beginning of every calendar year. Source: Nabhi’s Compendium of Orders under Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), Seventh Revised Edition, 31st July, 2007”
7. A plain reading of the above Rule clearly postulates that it is a beneficial provision, which deems a mother of a Government servant to be dependent on the latter, if she is normally residing with him and if her income from all sources, including pension, does not exceed Rs.1500/- per month. However, as is axiomatic from a reading of the above rule, an exception is carved out in the case of parents, who are held entitled to the benefit of the said Rules, even if they live away from the employee at another station, with other member of the family.
8. In State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others, reported as (1998) 4 SCC 117 the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly expounded the obligations of the State to provide medical facilities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court posited that denial of its obligation by the State would ex facie be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the said report is extracted hereinbelow:
9. That apart, in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Usha Kumari (Smt.) (supra), wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Nand Rani, Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Rajpura v. State of Punajab (2000-2) 125 PLR 617 has held as under:
10. Similarly in Padma Sharma (Supra) wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. M.P. Ojha and Anr. (supra) as in Para 11 held as under:-
11. In so far as the plea of Mr. Mathur that the petitioner has shown his mother staying at Bihar in the declaration form, to contend that she was not staying with him is concerned, the same is not appealing. The form has to be seen in perspective, inasmuch as, it is not only the mother but the petitioner has given the particulars of his wife and children also, and the address of Bihar was, his permanent address as also of his parents. It appears the declaration given was for LTC purposes. In any case the particulars of the form cannot be construed to mean that the mother of the petitioner was staying in Bihar. If this plea is accepted then on the same analogy the petitioner’s wife and children, whose permanent address was in Bihar, were also staying in Bihar; which is not the case of the respondents. Further the plea of the respondents that the father of the petitioner being a pensioner, his mother was dependent on him is also not appealing. Suffice to state the pension of the father being only Rs.5,200/-, the same could not have supported the medical treatment of the mother of the petitioner.
12. In view of the position of the facts and law narrated above, it must be held that the mother of the petitioner was dependant wholly on the petitioner as the dependency does not only relatable to financial dependency but also physical dependency as held by the judgments referred to above.”
10. A perusal of the above extracted paragraphs of the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2017, clearly and unequivocally lead to one inescapable conclusion that dependency cannot be determined merely on the basis of financial dependency. It has to be social and in terms of the health as well.
11. It is an admitted position that the mother of respondent No.1 had undergone surgery and remained in hospital; as evidenced by the bills furnished on behalf of respondent No.1.
12. In our considered view, a scheme, which is in its very nature derived for the benefit of an employee; as a welfare measure to provide for medical treatment of Government servants and their immediate family members, cannot be interpreted in a narrow and constructive manner. The same would be anathema in a welfare State.
13. It is nobody’s case that the respondent No.1’s mother had independent means sufficient to defray the medical expenses incurred on her treatment. Even considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant college that the respondent No.1’s father was a retired Government servant; drawing a pension in the sum of Rs.5200/- per month, the same evidently would not suffice to pay for the expensive and necessary life saving treatment undergone by the respondent No.1’s mother.
14. In other words, the meager pension being received by the father of respondent No.1, cannot in any manner disentitle the latter from receiving reimbursement for his ailing mother’s treatment, in view of the extant Rules. Even otherwise, the plea of the appellant college that the respondent No.1 had not filed the necessary documents to establish the circumstance that his mother resided with him is belied by the material on record, as correctly found by the learned Single Judge.
15. In this behalf, we observe the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. and Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd., reported as 1990 (Supp) SSC 727, wherein it has been held that “ the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.”
16. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the said impugned judgment dated 28.08.2017, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal.
17. The appeal is devoid of merits and is resultantly dismissed, with litigation expenses and costs quantified in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, which facts and circumstances elaborated hereinbefore warrants. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) DEEPA SHARMA, J (JUDGE) DECEMBER 01, 2017 dn