Madras High Court
J.Kannan vs The Director General Of Police on 7 January, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
and W.M.P.(MD).No.1220 of 2020
J.Kannan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Commissioner,
Department of Treasuries and Accounts,
Panagal Building,
No.1, Jeenis Road,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records
pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.098865/Ka.Ma.Ne-1/2018 dated 10.09.2018 and consequent
impugned letter of 3rd respondent D2/54668/2019 dated 20.12.2019 and quash
the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reimburse a sum of
1/18
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
Rs.3,25,529/- towards medical expenses incurred for conducting surgery on
petitioner's father with interest of 9%, within the time frame fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthick
For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ petitioner has been filed challenging the order passed by the
1st respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.098865/Ka.Ma.Ne-1/2018
dated 10.09.2018 and seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to
reimburse a sum of Rs.3,25,529/- towards medical expenses incurred for
conducting surgery on petitioner's father with interest of 9%, within the time
frame fixed by this Court.
2.Heard Mr.P.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for
the respondents.
3.The petitioner herein is a Police Constable, Grade – II, under the
Tamil Nadu Police Department and also a member of the Tamil Nadu Police
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
Benevolent Fund Scheme. The petitioner's father had underwent a Coronary
Angiogram Surgery, for which, the petitioner had incurred medical expenses
to the tune of Rs.3,25,529/-. His claim for reimbursement of the medical
expenses came to be rejected through the impugned order dated 20.12.2019,
on the ground that since the petitioner was a married employee, he is not
entitled to claim reimbursement as per Clause V (iii) of the proceedings of the
Tamil Nadu Police Benevolent Fund Central Committee. Challenging the
same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions
made by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as well as a Honourable
Division Bench of this Court and submitted that the parents of the employee
are deemed to be dependants as held in the aforesaid decisions and therefore,
the claim for medical reimbursement for the father of the petitioner cannot be
denied.
5.A perusal of the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this
Court in the case of The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Anna Nagar, Madurai and
another Vs. S.Veerapandi and another made in W.A.(MD).No.1472 of 2018
dated 24.10.2018, reveals that the Honourable Division Bench has
categorically held that the parents of the employee will also be covered under
the Medical Insurance Scheme, even if the employee remains unmarried, since
they are deemed to be dependants of the employee.
6.The decision of the Honourable Division Bench was also followed by
a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of R.Kathiravan Vs. The
Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family
Welfare Department and 4 others passed in W.P.No.35621 of 2019, dated
02.01.2020, in which the learned Single Judge had taken into consideration of
the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench and taken a similar
view. The relevant portion of such consideration reads thus:
"8.The object of the Health Insurance Scheme 2016 is
to help the employee to tide over the crisis faced by the
employee due to a sudden and emergent medical
emergency. The Government had thought it fit to
appoint the United India Insurance Company Limited
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
(the fifth respondent herein) for the implementation of
the scheme and for the disbursement of the medical
reimbursement. The scheme itself contemplates the list
of hospitals where the employee and his family
members can undergo treatment. It becomes important
to take note of Annexure-I in G.O.Ms.202, dated
30.06.2016. Under Clause 4 of the Annexure, 'Family
members' are defined. Clause 4(iii) states that the
parents of the employee will also be covered only till
the employee remains unmarried. The said Clause, if it
is read literally, on the face of it, sounds illegal and
illogical. The parents of an employee will not cease to
be parents after the marriage of the employee.
Unfortunately, even though this society is moving
towards a state where the parents are disregarded
after marriage, this Court does not expect the
Government to give a similar treatment for the parents
of employees, who get married. This Clause cannot be
read in isolation and it cannot be given a literal
meaning, since it will end up with disturbing
consequences. The only way to read this Clause is that
the parents will continue to be treated as family
members till they continue to be the dependants of the
Government employee. If this Clause is not assigned
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
this meaning, the poor parents will be left in lurch
during the evening of their life and more particularly,
considering the cost of medical care that is prevailing
at present. Therefore, the real purport of this Clause is
that the parents of the employee must continue to be
the dependants of the employee and in which case they
will also fall within the definition of 'Family members'.
9.It will also be relevant to rely upon the judgment
cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this
regard. This Court in W.P.(MD).No.4117 of 2018 dated
21.03.2018 passed an order on similar facts and the
same is extracted hereunder:
“The petitioner is working as Salesman in a
liquor outlet run by TASMAC. He is a
regular employee. He is a member of the
Medical reimbursement scheme introduced
by TASMAC. The petitioner's father
underwent a Lung surgery. When a claim for
reimbursement was made, it was denied on
the only ground that the petitioner got
married and that therefore his father cannot
be a beneficiary.
2.This ground of rejection was specifically
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
frowned upon by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.
7365 of 2010 dated 26.07.2011. Therefore,
the order impugned in this writ petition is
quashed. The second respondent is directed
to process the petitioner's medical
reimbursement claim and effect settlement in
terms of the scheme announced by the
TASMAC for its employees. The medical
reimbursement shall be done within a period
of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.”
9.The above order was taken on appeal before the
Division Bench in W.A.No.1472 of 2018 and the
Division Bench by an order dated 24.10.2018
dismissed the appeal. The relevant portion in the order
is extracted herein:
“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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
reliance upon the following decisions:
(i) (1998) 2 SCC 554 [State of M.P. and
others Vs. M.P.Ojha and another;
(ii) (1991) 3 SCC 11 [Union of India and
others Vs. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate
and others]
(iii) (2006) 4 MLJ 1183 [K.Sundararaj Vs.
Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai), Ltd., Madurai,
rep.by its Managing Director, Bye-pass
Road, Madurai.
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
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
overiding 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
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 and
enactments by way of purposive
interpretation. Even under the Hindu Law,
there is an implicit obligation upon the son to
maintain the dependant parent. Thus, the
contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants cannot be sustained. 6.Coming to
the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, in our
considered view that there is no applicability
to the case on hand. In fact, the decision
rendered in (1998) 2 SCC 554 [State of M.P.
and others Vs. M.P.Ojha and another], helps
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
the case of the respondents. It is apposite to
refer paragraph 13 of the said judgment,
which reads as under:
13.The expression "wholly dependent" is not
a term of art. It has to be given its due
meaning with reference to the Rules in which
it appears. We need not make any attempt to
define the expression "wholly dependent" to
he applicable to all cases in all
circumstances. We also need not look into
other provisions of law where such
expression is defined. That would likely to
lead to results which the relevant Rules
would not have contemplated. The expression
"wholly dependent" has to be understood in
the context in which it is used keeping in
view the object of the particular Rules where
it is contained. We cannot curtail the
meaning of "wholly dependent" by reading
into this the definition as given in SR 8 which
has been reproduced above. Further, the
expression "wholly dependent" as appearing
in the definition of family as given in Medical
Rules cannot be confined to mere financial
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
dependence. Ordinarily dependence means
financial dependence but for a member of
family it would mean other support, may be
physical, as well. To be “wholly dependent"
would therefore include both financial and
physical dependence. If support required is
physical and a member of the family is
otherwise financially sound he may not
necessarily be wholly dependent. Here the
father was 70 years of age and was sick and
it could not be said that he was not wholly
dependent on his son. Son has to look after
him in his old age. Even otherwise by getting
a pension of Rs.414 per month which by any
standard is a paltry amount it could not be
said that the father was not "wholly
dependent" on his son. That the father had a
separate capacity of being a retired
Government servant is immaterial if his case
falls within the Medical Rules being a
member of the family of his son and wholly
dependent on him. A flexible approach has to
be adopted in interpreting and applying the
Rules in a ease like the present one. There is
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
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. It is not
necessary for us to look into this aspect of
the matter as we are satisfied that under the
relevant Medical Rules, the father was
member of the family of his son and was
wholly dependent on him and the 2nd
respondent was thus fully entitled to
reimbursement for the expenses incurred on
the treatment of his father and other
traveling expenses.
7.From the above, one can say that it is still
open to the appellants to reject a request for
reimbursement, if they are satisfied that a
parent is not a dependant. Secondly, in the
aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court
was dealing with the provision which defines
a “family”. There is a difference between the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
words “omits” and “includes”. Hence, the
aforesaid judgment cannot be read in
support of the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants.
8.The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India and
others Vs. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate
and others reported in (1991) 3 SCC 11, also
does not have an application. The facts are
totally different in the said case. The
respondent therein sought for
regularisation,which was rejected. Much
reliance has also been made on the decision
of the learned Single Judge in the case of
K.Sundararaj Vs. Management of Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai), Ltd., Madurai, rep.by its
Managing Director, Bye-pass Road,
Madurai, reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1183.
With due respect to the learned Single Judge,
we are unable to agree with the reasoning
rendered therein, particularly in the light of
the reason furnished above. After all, we are
dealing with the Rule, which is meant to help
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
the members of a family in an employee and
thus, requires a purposive interpretation.
9.This writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.
However, we make it clear that it is still open
to the appellants to consider the matter on
merit and if they are satisfied that the parent
of the first respondent is not dependant, then,
it is open to them to reject the claim of
reimbursement. No costs. Consequently,
CMP(MD)No.10479 of 2018 is closed.”
10.The above judgment of the Division Bench
makes it clear that the parents will also be a part of
family members of the employee provided that they are
also dependant on the employee. This judgment will
also squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
11.In view of the above discussion, this Court
has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned letter
of the third respondent dated 25.04.2019 and
accordingly the same is quashed. There shall be a
direction to the third respondent to re-consider the
claim made by the petitioner and after satisfying
himself that the father of the petitioner is dependant on
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
the petitioner, the third respondent shall reimburse the
medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for the
surgery of his father, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The
petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to
the third respondent along with a copy of this order.
7.The aforesaid extract is self explanatory to the effect that even though
the petitioner is a married employee, he would be entitled to claim
reimbursement for the medical expenses incurred for his father.
8.In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order passed by
the first respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
098865/Ka.Ma.Ne-1/2018, dated 10.09.2018 and consequent impugned letter
of 3rd respondent D2/54668/2019, dated 20.12.2019, are stand quashed.
Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third respondent herein to
reimburse a sum of Rs.3,25,529/- towards the Medical Expenses incurred
by the petitioner for conducting the Coronary Angiogram Surgery for his
father, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Such an exercise of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
disbursing the amount shall be made within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.This writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
07.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
Note: In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Commissioner, Department of Treasuries and Accounts,
Panagal Building, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Superintendent of Police, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
M.S.RAMESH,J.
TM
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2020
07.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
