Pensioner status of parents disqualifies children from claiming medical reimbursement under applicable rules.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.23121/2020, 7316/2019]

In both these writ petitions, a common issue is involved that relates to the entitlement to medical reimbursement for the parents of the petitioners. The petitioners are judicial officers, and the claims raised as medical reimbursement for the respective parents were declined, on the reason that the respective parents were pensioners and therefore not eligible to get the benefit of medical reimbursement in terms of the Members of Kerala Legislative Assembly (Medical Facilities) Rules, 1994, which is applicable to the petitioners.

2. In W.P.(C) 7316/2019, the petitioner was claiming medical reimbursement for the father of the petitioner, who retired as Deputy Director of Agriculture and is drawing pension from that scheme. In W.P.(C)

23121/2020, the petitioner is claiming medical reimbursement for his mother, who is also a pensioner drawing more than Rs.9,000/- per month as pension.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, as far as the claim of the petitioners are concerned, the issue has already been decided as per the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sunu George [ 2019 (4) KLT 288 ].

4. After carefully going through the records and also perusing the observations made by this Court in Sunu George (Supra), I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the claim for medical reimbursement is governed by the Members of Kerala Legislative Assembly (Medical Facilities) Rules, 1994 and Section 2(f) defines a “Member of the Family”, which means the wife, or husband, children including adopted children and step children and parent wholly dependent on the Member. In Sunu George (Supra), this clause was interpreted with reference to parents who are pensioners, and after taking note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of MP and Others v. M.P.Ojha and Another [1998 (1) KLT OnLine 1122 (SC)], it was observed as follows: “Going by the specific definition of family, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any medical reimbursement in the case of expenses incurred for the treatment of pensioners, through their children who are Government servants. M.P. Ojha was in the distinct circumstances of the father earning a meagre monthly pension of 414/-and also being eligible for medical reimbursement as a retired Government employee”. We specifically notice the following extract from the judgment: "A flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying the Rules in a case like the present one. There is no dispute that the son took his father to Bombay for treatment for his serious ailment after getting due permission from the competent authority. It was submitted before us that the father being a retired Government servant could himself get sanction for treatment outside the State as a special case from the competent authority". We notice from the above extract that the decision in M.P. Ojha turns on the peculiar facts of a meagre pension of 414/- and the pensioner also being entitled to reimbursement. In the present case the mother of the petitioner who is a retired Headmistress, draws more than 22,000/- as pension and this cannot raise any presumption of dependence on the daughter, for sustenance or the treatment. Though the daughter has an obligation to look after the parents, it cannot be said that there is a resultant obligation on the Government, the employer, to reimburse the expenses incurred by the daughter for the treatment of the mother. The rule regarding reimbursement also calls for no debate and there is no challenge to the rule. The reimbursement of medical expense is an incidence of service r