Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14101

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shrikrishna, Member
Dishant Deepak Salvi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.52 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri P.J.Prasadrao
For the Respondents: Shri R.R.Shetty, Dr. V.B.Joshi, Shri P.Khosla

Subordinate service rules on medical dependency cannot override parliamentary Act mandating children's duty to maintain unable parents; employee son's claim for mother's treatment upheld despite father's income exceeding limit.

Headnote:(A) Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 - Dependency definition - Income limit for family members (other than spouse) Rs.3,500/- plus Dearness Relief - Mother’s medical reimbursement claim by government employee son - Father employed with monthly salary exceeding limit - Claim allowed despite initial reimbursement and subsequent recovery order, as Rules (subordinate legislation) cannot override parliamentary Act imposing children’s duty to maintain parents unable to maintain themselves - Parliamentary Act prevails over executive rules absent specific exemption - Realism in family dependencies considered, following coordinate bench precedent where aged mother not deemed solely dependent on pensioner father’s income. (Paras 3(b), 5(a), 8(b), 8(c))

(B) Statutory interpretation - Subordinate legislation vs. Parliamentary Act - Rules framed by executive cannot over-ride Act of Parliament - Legislator presumed to know existing law; no exemption provided in Act for government employees covered by service rules. (Para 8(b))

Facts of the case:
Government employee claimed and received reimbursement of Rs.4,04,945/- for mother’s hip replacement surgery in 2010, declaring parents as dependents despite father’s employment with salary over dependency limit. Complaint by workers’ union led to recovery orders in 2016. Employee challenged, asserting mother’s unemployment and duty under maintenance law.

Findings of Court:
Impugned recovery orders quashed; interim stay made absolute; respondents directed to refund any recovered amount; no costs.

Issues: Whether mother qualifies as dependent under service rules given father’s income; whether parliamentary maintenance Act overrides service rules on children’s duty to parents; applicability of delay in recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: Service rules’ strict income ceiling inapplicable where parliamentary Act mandates children’s maintenance duty; mother entitled to medical facilities via son despite father’s employment, as rules subordinate to Act and family realities acknowledged.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's employment history and initial medical reimbursements for mother's treatment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents argue mother not dependent due to father's income exceeding limit. (Para 3)
3. rejoinder on documents and children's duty under parents act. (Para 4)
4. stay vacation arguments and cghs income limits application. (Para 5)
5. oral arguments on precedence of act over rules. (Para 6)
6. background of union complaint and applicant's explanation. (Para 8)
7. oa allowed; impugned recovery orders quashed. (Para 9)

ORDER

The applicant has filed this Original Application to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 07.04.2016 and 09.04.2016 by which recovery of payment made to the applicant on account of medical expenses of treatment of his mother has been ordered and sought direction to the respondents not to recover any expenses already reimbursed to him and to continue to provide medical attendance to his mother.

2. The brief facts as stated in the OA are that the applicant was appointed as Hindi Typist vide order dated 08.01.2003 and subsequently as a Chargeman vide order dated 26.12.2008. At the time of joining as a Hindi Typist under the respondent No.2, he has declared his mother and father as dependents on him. The respondent No.3 has accepted the family details and hence, the parents are dependent on him. The applicant informed the respondent No.2 that his father is employed as Checker in the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport, Pune [now renamed as Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan Mahamandal Limited (for short ‘PMPML’)] on a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per month and that time, his mother was not employed and hence she has no income.

2(a). The applicant’s mother was diagnosed as suffering from Ankylosing Spondylitis and Arthritis in the year 2008. The applicant being the elder son of his family, his parents are residing with him and he was incurring the medical expenses of his dependent parents. The condition of the applicant’s mother became worse in 2010 and Doctor recommended for her total hip replacement surgery. He was sanctioned medical expenses of Rs.3,56,400/- for his mother’s treatment. Thereafter, the applicant applied for further advance of Rs.69,700/- which was granted to him. The applicant submitted the bill which was passed for Rs.1,99,629/- only. After the operation of his mother, he submitted a bill claiming Rs.2,51,836/- which was passed after adjusting the medical advance of Rs.69,700/-. The applicant refunded to the respondent No.3 the balance amount of Rs.95,640/-. Thus, the bill dated 26.08.2010 was passed for Rs.1,99,629/-, bill dated 23.10.2010 was passed for Rs.2,04,421/- and bill dated 01.10.2010 was passed for Rs.895/-, thus, totaling to Rs.4,04,945/-. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 07.04.2016 and 11.04.2016 informed him that it is proposed to recover the amount of Rs.4,04,945/- out of which a sum of Rs.One Lakh was paid after taking loan from cooperative credit society by the respondents.

2(b). It has been submitted that the above action of the respondent No.2 was based upon a complaint dated 13.04.2016 received from Ordnance Factory Workers Union which was highly erroneous as the applicant has declared his dependents properly and they are covered under dependency in accordance with CS (MA) Rules, 1944 and also the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

2(c). The applicant vide his application dated 14.03.2016 and 22.11.2016 submitted that his mother is unemployed and has no income of her own. He has placed reliance on decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal dated 16.10.2015 in the case of S.Rajesh Kumar Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence in OA No.180/00469/2014. He submits that the applicant’s father had declared in his letter dated 10.09.2008 that he has not claimed medical expense and the same was confirmed by the Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan Mahamandal Limited.

2(d). It has been submitted that in the case of C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14101

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALShrikrishna, MemberDishant Deepak Salvi – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentORIGINAL APPLICATION No.52 of 2017

Subordinate service rules on medical dependency cannot override parliamentary Act mandating children's duty to maintain unable parents; employee son's claim for mother's treatment upheld despite father's income exceeding limit.

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shrikrishna, Member
Dishant Deepak Salvi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.52 of 2017