Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal allowed; judgment of the learned Single ...

State of Kerala and Ors. v. Sunu George

Case / Petition Number:WA No. 1313 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Vinod Chandran
  • V. G. Arun
Judgment Date
2019-09-24
Court Decision / Holding
The learned Single Judge’s direction to forward the application for consideration was set aside. The appellate court held that the Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960 limit reimbursement to wholly dependent parents of a government servant, and the spouse’s status as a pensioner does not create a system-wide entitlement for parents. MP Ojha’s judgment is distinguished on the facts; in the present case the mother’s pension exceeds Rs. 22,000, negating a presumption of dependence. The appeal is allowed, the order returning the claim is upheld, and there is no order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside; Regional Deputy Director’s order upheld; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Director DHSE, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Regional Deputy Director Higher Secondary Education, Ernakulam

Respondents

  • Sunu George HSST Computer Science, St. Joseph HSS, Avinissery, Thrissur (Respondent/Petitioner)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Government Pleader
  • • T. Rajasekharan Nair (for Appellants)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Ganesh
  • • Paul Jacob
  • • Pearl K. Davis
  • • P. Sree Kumar (Senior GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala writ appeal concerns medical reimbursement under the Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960. Sunu George, a government servant, sought reimbursement for her mother’s heart surgery (Rs. 8,34,265). The Regional Deputy Director rejected the claim on the ground that the mother, a pensioner drawing a pension of Rs. 22,180, could not be treated as wholly dependent on the government servant. The petitioner had contended that the mother was wholly dependent and that the amount spent on treatment was funded by her daughter; she also argued that excluding pensioners’ parents from reimbursement is arbitrary, especially since a pensioner's spouse can receive reimbursement. The learned Single Judge had directed consideration within two months, relying on State of MP & Others v. MP Ojha & Another (1998) 2 SCC 554 to interpret the rules generously. The Government contended that the Kerala rules restrict reimbursement to wholly dependent parents, and clarificatory notifications only extend benefits to spouses, not parents. The Kerala High Court, however, held that the facts of MP Ojha are distinguishable (the father’s meagre pension and dependency) and observed that the mother in this case has a substantial pension, making dependence unlikely. The court concluded that reimbursement cannot be granted on equity and moral grounds, struck down the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the Government’s appeal, with the RDD’s decision upheld and no costs awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960G.O(P) 456/79/(41) FIN (Annexure I)Circular No. 64215/G2/2004/H&FWD (Annexure II)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Flexible interpretation of the Rules in applying reimbursement provisions
  • Reimbursement of medical expenses is an incidence of service regulated by terms of grant
  • Reimbursement cannot be granted on grounds of equity or moral obligation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960 restrict reimbursement to parents who are wholly dependent on the government servant. They argued that extending reimbursement to pensioners’ spouses does not justify extending it to parents. They relied on the rule’s wording and clarificatory notifications restricting claims to dependents, and emphasized that the rule is clear and not subject to equitable expansion; MP Ojha’s facts were distinct (a meagre pension for the father) and cannot be generalized to Mrs. Sunu George’s case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued that the rule and clarifications were not meant to exclude pensioners’ parents in cases of dependency, especially when the net pension may be insufficient for sustenance. They urged the court to adopt a flexible, equitable interpretation to ensure medical reimbursement for those who bore the burden of dependent family members, citing the petitioner’s needs and the broader welfare objective. They pressed that the Circulars effectively permit spouse reimbursement and that there was no bar to extending similar relief to dependents, particularly where the burden of medical expenses is borne by the family.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of M.P. & Others v. M.P. Ojha & Anr1998 (2) SCC 554DistinguishedThe court distinguishes MP Ojha as being fact-specific and not applicable where the pension is substantial and dependence is not presumed.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State of Kerala and Ors. v. Sunu George and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 2ND ASWINA, 1941** ## **WA.No.1313 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21627/2016 DATED 14-11-2017 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE DIRECTOR DHSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **SUNU GEORGE HSST COMPUTER SCIENCE, ST.JOSEPH HSS, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR, W/O ADV.PEARL.K.DAVIS, PRATHEEKSHA , GANDHINAGAR PUTHEN VETTUVAZHY.P.O., EAST FORT, THRISSUR-680020.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.GANESH R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB R1 BY ADV. SRI.PEARL K.DAVIS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SENIOR GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR FOR APPELLANT** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA.No.1313 OF 2018 2 ## _**C.R.**_ ## **JUDGMENT** **K. Vinod Chandran, J.** **The petitioner, a government servant, was before this Court seeking medical reimbursement for the heart surgery underwent by her mother, a retired Headmistress. The total claim for reimbursement was a sum of Rs.8,34,265/-. The Regional Deputy Director, before whom the application was submitted, returned the same finding that the mother, a retired Headmistress, is a pensioner and is drawing a pension of Rs.22180/-. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the amount of pension obtained by the mother was unable to sustain her and in fact she was wholly dependent on the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that the entire money for the treatment was spent by the petitioner.** WA.No.1313 OF 2018 3 **2. It is argued that the condition in the Circular that only those parents, who are wholly dependent on the government servant, are eligible for medical reimbursement is arbitrary. When the spouse of a government servant, who is a pensioner, is entitled to reimbursement, there is no reason why the parents are discriminated.** **3. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the** _**State of M.P. & Others v. M.P. Ojha & Another [(1998) (2) SCC 554]**_ **to direct the Regional Deputy Director to forward the application to the Government and the Government to consider the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of application in the light of** _**M.P. Ojha's**_ **case [supra].** ## **4. The learned Government Pleader submits** **that the facts as revealed from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clearly distinct.** WA.No.1313 OF 2018 4 **The Kerala Government Servants' Medical Attendance Rules, 1960 clearly stipulates that the parents of a government Servant are eligible for medical reimbursement, for the treatments they are subjected to, only if they are wholly dependent on the government servant. The mere fact that the spouse who is a pensioner, has been permitted medical treatment, even if she/he is a pensioner, would not mitigate the rigor of reimbursement in the case of parents, is the argument.** **5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would take us to the clarificatory notifications issued by the Government, specifically indicating that the spouse alone would be entitled to medical reimbursement even if he or she is a pensioner. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no logic insofar as excluding the parents, who are pensioners, from medical reimbursement especially when the children have a duty to look** WA.No.1313 OF 2018 5 **after the parents.** **6. 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 Rs.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**_ WA.No.1313 OF 2018 6 _**a special case from the competent authority.”**_ **7. We notice from the above extract that the decision in** _**M.P. Ojha**_ **turns on the peculiar facts of a meagre pension of Rs.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 Rs.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 regulated by the terms on which such** WA.No.1313 OF 2018 7 **reimbursement is granted. It cannot be granted on grounds of equity or moral obligation and as we noticed, there is no challenge to the specific rule.** **We hence set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal of the Government. The order of the Regional Deputy Director returning the claim of reimbursement is perfectly in order. There is no order as to costs.** **Sd/-** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN,** **JUDGE.** **Sd/-** **V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.** **sp/25/09/19** //True Copy// P.A. To Judge WA.No.1313 OF 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I** **A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) 456/79/(41) FIN DATED 05.05.1979** **ANNEXURE II** **A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.64215/G2/ 2004/H & FWD DATED 31.03.2004.**