Kerala High Court
Sunu George vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: Anil K.Narendran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
RP NO. 77 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2019 IN WA NO.1313 OF
2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
SUNU GEORGE
AGED 47 YEARS
HSST COMPUTER SCIENCE,
ST. JOSEPH HSS, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR, W/O. ADV.
PEARL K. DAVIS, 'PRATHEEKSHA',
GANDHINAGAR, PUTHEN VETTUVAZHY P.O.,
EAST FORT, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680020
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
SHRI.NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
DHSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
R.P.No.77/25
2
2025:KER:67660
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 14.08.2025, THE COURT ON 11.09.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.77/25
3
2025:KER:67660
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & V.G. ARUN, JJ.
=======================
R.P.No.77 of 2025
in
W.A.No.1313 of 2018
=======================
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
ORDER
V.G.Arun, J.
The review petitioner, a superannuated Higher Secondary
School Teacher (HSST), had filed a writ petition challenging
Ext.P5 order of the Regional Deputy Director of Higher
Secondary Education, rejecting her claim for reimbursement of
medical expenses incurred for her mother's treatment. The
claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's mother is
a service pensioner.
2. The writ petition was allowed by placing reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
M.P.Ojha and Another [(1998) 2 SCC 554]. The learned
Single Judge held that even though the petitioner's mother is
drawing pension, she is unable to meet the huge expenditure
incurred for treatment and petitioner being the only daughter,
2025:KER:67660
she is bound to look after her mother. Based on the finding, the
learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to re-submit her
application for medical reimbursement and directed the
Government to pass orders on the sanctioning of medical
reimbursement within two months.
3. Aggrieved by the finding and the direction, the State
went in appeal and by the judgment sought to be reviewed, the
Division Bench allowed the appeal by holding that there cannot
be any presumption of dependence of the pensioner on her
daughter for sustenance or treatment and even if the daughter
has an obligation to look after her mother, there is no resultant
obligation on the Government, the employer, to reimburse the
expense incurred by the daughter. The Division Bench also
found that the decision in M.P.Ojha (supra) turns on the
peculiar facts of a meagre pension of Rs.414/- and the
pensioner being entitled to reimbursement, whereas in the
petitioner's case, her mother, a retired Headmistress, was
drawing more than Rs.22,000/- as pension. The petitioner's
2025:KER:67660
attempt to challenge the Division Bench judgment was
unsuccessful, as her Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by
the Apex Court. This review petition was filed thereafter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
monthly pension of the petitioner's mother was only
Rs.22,180/-, whereas the medical expenses for the heart
surgery undergone by her came to Rs.8,34,265/-. As the
mother was not able to meet the huge expenditure, the
responsibility fell on the petitioner, she being the only daughter
and in such circumstances, it has to be taken that the mother
was wholly dependent on the petitioner. The learned Single
Judge having rightly dealt with the situation and ordered
reimbursement following the dictum in M.P.Ojha (supra), the
Division Bench committed gross illegality in reversing the
judgment by refusing to apply the dictum on the premise that
the facts therein are different.
5. Learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the
attempt through the review petition is to get the matter
2025:KER:67660
reheard, which is not legally permissible. According to the
Government Pleader, there is no glaring omission or patent
mistake in the judgment warranting interference in exercise of
the review jurisdiction.
6. As rightly contended by the Government Pleader,
review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing
of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the
court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission,
patent mistake or grave error has crept in the judgment by
judicial fallibility. An error which is not self evident and has to
be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be held as an
error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the exercise
of the power of review. As held by the Apex Court in N.
Anantha Reddy v, Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] a
review petition cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
7. In the impugned judgment, this Court has held that the
decision in M.P.Ojha (supra) was rendered in the distinct
circumstance of the father of the petitioner therein earning a
2025:KER:67660
monthly pension of Rs.414/- and being eligible for medical
reimbursement as a retired Government employee. As far as
the instant case is concerned, the relevant circular provides for
medical reimbursement only to those who are wholly
dependent on the Government servant. The Government has
clarified that the expenses incurred in connection with the
treatment of the spouse of the Government employee can be
reimbursed even if the spouse is a retired Government
employee. Therefore, the rejection of petitioner's claim for
reimbursement of the treatment expenses of her mother is in
accordance with the extant circulars. Pertinent also to note that
the circulars were not under challenge in the writ petition.
For the aforementioned reasons, the review petition is
dismissed.
sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sj
