The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of a son to maintain the dependent parent under Hindu Law and the applicability of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in determining entitlement to medical support for dependent parents.

M.M. Sundresh, J.

This writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned which was passed on the ground that the scheme which provides for medical reimbursement cannot be extended to the father of a married employee as against an unmarried one.

2. Before going into the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it would be appropriate to produce the relevant Rule, governing the case, as under:

Amendments to Tamil Nadu Government

Employees Health Fund Rules, 1991.

Amendment I

Substitute the following for the existing Rule 2:-

1. Extent of Application:

Those rules shall extend to the whole of the state of Tamil Nadu. Those rules shall apply to all categories of full time regular (Time-Scale) Government Employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu and their family members and to All India Service Officers serving in the State and to their family members

"Family" for the purpose of this scheme will include, "wife and children" of the Government servant. In case of female Government servant husband and children" and in the case of unmarried Government servant, the dependant parents."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that a reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it clear that only the 'wife and children' of a male working employee are entitled for the benefit under the scheme, as they alone come within the purview of "family". In support of his contention, the learned counsel has made reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) State of M.P. and Others Vs. M.P. Ojha and another, (1998) 2 SCC 554;

(ii) [Union of India and Others Vs. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 11]

(iii) [K.Sundararaj Vs. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai), Ltd., Madurai, rep.by its Managing Director, Bye-pass Road, Madurai,2006 4 MLJ 1183].

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants on the construction of the Rule, is not correct. One has to see the object of the Rule. A restrictive interpretation cannot be given to the word "family". It merely says the other categories to be included. Thus, there is no exclusion of the father from the definition. Therefore, no interference is required. It is further submitted that any restricted interpretation, would go against the very object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which mandates a son to maintain the aged parents. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 3 of the aforesaid enactment deals with, the act to have overriding effect on the provisions of any other enactment, which is inconsistent. The learned counsel seeks support from Section 20 of the aforesaid enactment, which provides for medical support for senior citizens by the State Government.

5. The Rule is meant for public purpose. Therefore, a literal interpretation cannot be adopted for understanding it. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the Rule does not specifically exclude a dependant parent. When we interpret the word 'include', it can adverse the illustration in nature. To put it differently, such definition does not exclude any other category. Therefore, when the definition "family" is mentioned to include the wife and children, it cannot be stated that it excludes dependant parent. There cannot be a different yardstick that has to be adopted for a married son and an unmarried son. The question is with respect to the dependency of the parent which has got no rationale with the status of the son. After all, as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a son is the duty bound to maintain the dependant parent. Though Section 3 of the aforesaid enactment has got an overriding effect, we have to read the said provision along with other provisions of different Rules a