Holding

A retired government servant who is financially modest and physically dependent on his son is "wholly dependent" within the meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Medical Rules, making the son eligible for reimbursement of the father's medical expenses.

Summary

The case concerned whether a retired government servant, receiving a modest pension, could be deemed "wholly dependent" on his son under Rule 2(d) of the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, thereby allowing the son to claim reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for the father's treatment outside the state. The father, aged 70, suffered a serious heart condition requiring treatment unavailable in Madhya Pradesh, and the son obtained permission from the Director of Medical Education to take him to Bombay. The State denied reimbursement, arguing that the father's pension meant he was not wholly dependent on the son. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowed the claim, prompting the State to appeal. The Supreme Court held that "wholly dependent" must be interpreted in the context of the Medical Rules, encompassing both financial and physical dependence, and that the father's modest pension did not preclude his dependence on the son. Consequently, the son was entitled to reimbursement, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the term "wholly dependent" in Rule 2(d) of the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 includes both financial and physical dependence.
Whether a retired government servant receiving a pension can be considered wholly dependent on his son for purposes of reimbursement under the Medical Rules.
Whether the definition of "family" and "wholly dependent" in Supplementary Rule 8 under FR 9(32) is applicable to interpret the Medical Rules.

Subjects

interpretation of statutesdefinition of wholly dependentgovernment service medical reimbursementfamily definitionpensioner dependenceM.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958

Judgment

A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
v.
M.P. OJHA AND ANR.

DECEMBER 18, 1997

B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

M.P. Civil Seivices (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958:

Rules 2(d)(ii) and (11)(1)-Medical expenses of the retired and aged
C father of the State Govemment se1vant-R.eimbursement of-Criteria-Rules
providing for reimbursement of medical expenses by a govemment se1vant on
his family-Word 'family' as defined in Rule 2(d) includes parents wholly
dependent on that govemment seiva11t-Father getting Rs. 414 as pen-
sion-Held, a retired father getting palt1y sum of money as pension is wholly
dependent on his son-17ierefore, the son, a government seivan~ e11titled to
D reimbursement of medical and travelling expenses-Plea of State that father
was a pensioner and iherefore, not. wholly dependent on the son,
rejected-Se1vice Law-Medical expe11seS---Crite1ia-Fundame11tal Rules, FR
9(32)-Supplemelltary Rules, R. 8.

E Words and Phrases---J'wholly dependent''-171e expression has to be
inte!preted with reference to the mies in which it occurs, keeping in view the
object of the mles--Dejinition. from another set of mies can not be im-
polted-171e depende11ce may be financial as well as physical-/nte!pretation
of statutes-Basic mies of inte!pretation---l'wposive inte!pretation-Seivice
law.
F
The father or an employee or the State or M.P. (Respondent No. 1),
who was getting a pension of Rs. 414 per month, developed serious ailment
the treatment for which was not available in the State. Therefore the son,
respondent No. 2, after taking permission from the competent authority,
took his father for m.atment to Bombay Under the M.P. Civil Services
G (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, the respondent No. 1 would be a mem-
ber of the family of his son, respondent No. 2. respondent No. 2 submitted
a Bill for the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him on
the treatment of his father as per Medical Rules. This reimbursement was
denied by the State on the ground that respondent No. 1 was himself a
H pensioner and that even if respondent was a family member of the respon-
654
STATE v. M.P. OJHA 655
dent No. 2, he was not wholly dependent on the respondent No. 2 as per A
Rule 2(d) of the ·Medical Rules.

The Respondents approached the Tribunal seeking relief of reimbur-
sement, which was allowed by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by the State.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court B

HELD : I. 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. It is not necessary to make an attempt to define the expression
"wholly dependent" which should be applicable to all cases in all cir- C
cumstances. It is also not necessary to look into other provisions of law
where such expression is defined. That would lead to results which the
relevant rules may not have contemplated. The expression "wholly depend-
ent 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. The meaning of
"wholly dependent" occurring i_n M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) D
Rules, 1958, cannot be confined to mere financial 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 depend-
ent" would therefore include both financial and physical dependence. If
support required is physical and a member of the family is otherwise
E
financially sound, he may not necessarily be wholly dependent. [661-BC]

2. In the present case, the father was 70 years old and was sick. It
cannot be said that he was not wholly dependent on his son. The son had
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 F
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 case like the present one. There
is no dispute that the son took his father to Bombay for treatment for his G
serious aliment after getting due permission from the competent authority.
It.is not necessary to examine that the father could have himself applied to
the competent authority for permission to get treatment outside the State.
This is because the father, under relevant Medical Rules, was a member of
the family of his son and was wholly dependent on him. The son is fully H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A entitled to reimbursement for the expenses incurred on the treatment of his
fati1er and other travelling expenses. [661-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1368 of
1990.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.89 of the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, .Jabalpur, in O.A. No. 683 of 1988.

Anoop G. Choudhary, Ms. Madhur Dadlani for S.K. Agnihotri for
the Appellants.

C Vivek Gambhir and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. WADHWA, J. This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is
D directed against the judgment dated June 30, 1989 of the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') holding that father of a
Government servant who himself has retired as a Government servant can
be wholly dependant on his son and son thus entitled to reimbursement of
medical expenses incurred on the treatment of his father under the relevant
M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 (for short 'Medical
E Rules'). This, according to Tribunal, would be so even where a separate
Rule is applicable for medical treatment to a retired Government servant.

There are two respondents before us. 1st respondent is the father
and the 2nd respondent is his son. The 1st respondent retired from
F Government service of the State and at the relevant time was drawing
pension of Rs. 176 with Rs. 238 as additional relief totalling Rs. 414 per
month. He was living with his son, the 2nd respondent, who was also a
Government servant and was working as Senior Radiographer, M.Y.
Hospital, Indore. Under the relevant Medical Rules, 1st respondent would
G be a member of family of his son, the 2nd respondent. The controversy
centred around the question if in the present case father was wholly
dependant on his son.

The father developed serious heart ailment and the treatment which
he required was not available in the State of Madhya Pradesh. By his
H application dated June 19, 1987 the son sought permission from the Direc-
STATEv. M.P. OJHA[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 657

tor of Medical Education, M.P., for treatment and investigation respecting A
his father. This permission was sought on the strength of the certificate
dated June 4, 1987 issued by DL A.K. Bharani, a Consultant in Cardiology,
M.Y. Hospital, Indore, certifying that the 1st respondent had been under
his treatment for hypertension and coronary artery disease (old M.I.) and
that it was, therefore, essential for the p-atient to get cardiological inves-
tigation. Dr. Bharani also certified that the 1st respondent might need
B
coronary angiography wit6 a view to decide about by-pass surgery and
further that these facilities were not available in the State Government
Hospital and that same would be available either at Bombay, New Dell1i
or Madras Etc. It is not necessary to refer to the correspondence that
ensued between the 2nd respondent and the concerned medical authorities c
of the State except to note that permission was granted by letter dated
August 12, 1987 by the Director of Medical Education Madhya Pradesh
for investigation/treatment of the lst respondent at Bombay Hospital,
B0mbay.

After the 2nd respondent, the son, got the necessary permission, he
D
took his father to Bombay, where he was treated and underwent by-pass
heart surgery. The 2nd respondent submitted a bill for Rs. 32,156.40 for
reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him on the treatment
of his father as per Medical Rules which amount did not include TA bills.
An objection was raised that the lst respondent being himself a Govern- E
ment pensioner permission could not have been granted to the 2nd respon-
dent for getting his father treated at Bombay. Another objection raised was
that though the lst respondent may be a member of the family of the 2nd
respondent, he was not wholly dependent on the 2nd respondent as he was
getting pension from the State Government.
F
As the 2nd respondent failed in his attempt to get reimbursement
under the Medical Rules, he approached the Tribunal seeking relief. He
impleaded the State Government, Director of Medical Education (Health)
and Joint Director-cum-Superintendent, M.Y. Hospital as respondents.
His father was also made a party as a co-petitioner. The Tribunal after G
considering the facts of the case and relevant Medical Rules allowed the
application and directed the respondents to reimburse the expenditure
incurred by the 2nd respondent on treatment of his father, the 1st respon-
dent at Bombay. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Stalt has filed this
appeal. H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A It was submitted by Mr. Choudhary, learned advocate for the appel-
lants, that father, a retired Government servant, who lived with his son, a
Government servant, could not be treated as "wholly dependent" within the
meaning of"family" under Rule 2(d) of the Medical Rules and thus the 2nd
respondent was not entitled to any reimbursement for the treatment of his
father. Mr. Choudhary said that to understand the expression "wholly
B dependent" reference should be made to Fundamental Rule (FR) 9. Mr.
Gambhir, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that
reference to FR 9 was irrelevant and in any case this FR 9 was not
applicable in the present case. He said that son was entitled to reimbur-
sement as per Medical Rules. Alternatively, he submitted that permission
C in the present case was granted by the competent authority within the
Medical Rules and reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the son for
treatment of his father could not be denied to him.

Admittedly, Medical Rules do not apply to retired Government
D servant and Rules have been framed regarding medical attendance of
Government pensioners and further that there are instructions issued from
time to time entitling them to get treatment, free of charge, available in the
Government hospitals of the State. However, Government pensioners are
not entitled for reimbursement of expenses incurred for their treatment
outside the State.
E
At this stage, it would be appropriate to set out the relevant Rules.

M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958.

"1(3) These rules shall not apply to -
F
(a) Retired Government servants;
(b) ··················································································
(c) ··················································································

2(d) "Family" means -
G
(i) The wife or husband of a Government seniant;

(ii) The parents, legitimate children including children adopted
legally and step children of such Government servant residing
H with and wholly dependent on that Government servant.
STATEv. M.P. OJfIA[D.P. WADHWA,J.) 659
ll. (1) Rules 3 to 10 shall, in so far as they relate to medical A
attendance and treatment at hospital apply to the members of the
family of a Government servant in the same manner and to the
same extent as they apply to Government servant :

Provided that where another child is born to a Government
servant where there are three or more children living, the addi- B
tional child so born shall not be entitled to the concession admis-
sible under these rules.

(2) A Government servant shall also be entitled for reimburse-
ment of the charges incurred by him for the treatment of his wife
during the confinement (including pre-natal and post- natal treat-
c
ment and treatment for abortion) :

Provided that no reimbursement shall be made if three or more
children are living on the date of such confinement."
D
We may note that Rules 3 to 10 provide for free medical treatment
to Government servant and also for reimbursement of the expenses in-
curred by him towards that.

We may now refer to the definition as to what "family" means under
Fundamental Rules as contended by Mr. Choudhary and in that connection E
according to him FR 9 contains the following definition of "family" :

"Family means (a) a Government servant's wife or husband, as the
case may be, residing with the Government servant and legitimate
children and step children residing with and wholly dependent
upon the Government servant. Except for purpose of Section F
XVI-A of the Supplementary Rules in Appendix V, it includes, in
addition, parents, sisters and minor brothers, if residing with and
wholly dependent upon the Government servant.

(b) For the purpose of Section XI, it includes in addition G
unmarried and widowed sisters and minor brother if residing with
and wholly dependent upon the Govt. servant.

Note:- Govt. servant's wife or husband, as the case may be,
legitimate children, step children, father, mother, step mother,
unmarried and widowed sisters, minor brothers who reside and H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A pension equivalent to death-cum-retirement gratuity does not ex-
ceed Rs. 250 p.m. may be deemed to be wholly dependent upon
the Government servant.

This amendment takes effects from the date of issue, Cases
already decided will not be re-opened.
B
Notes-(1) Not more than one wife is included m the term
'family' for the purpose of these rules.

(2) An adopted child shall be considered to be a legitimate
child if, under the personal law o.f the Government servant, adop-
c tion is legally recognised as conferring; on it the statutes of a
natural child."

According to Mr. Choudhary, therefore, to understand as to what
the expression "wholly dependent" means in Medical Rules we should draw
D strength from the similar expression "wholly dependent" appearing in FR
quoted above. The whole argument of Mr. Choudhary appears to us to be
fallacious. Fundamental Rul'<s have been framed under the Government of
India Act. There is no FR 9 as such. FR 9 (32) defines as to what is
"Travelling allowances". According to this definition "travelling allowances"
means:
E
"9(32). 'Travelling allowance' means an allowance granted to a
Government servant to cover the expenses which he incurs in
travelling in the interest of public service. It includes allowances
granted for the maintenance of conveyances, horses and tents."

F Under this FR 9(32) Supplementary Rules have been framed and the
definition of "family" on which Mr. Choudhary relied is in fact Supplemen-
tary Rule 8 (SR 8) framed under FR 9(32). Now, for one thing this
definition of "family" is to be confined to the case where a Government
servant on transfer seeks to draw allowances for himself and members of
G his family wholly dependent upon him. Secondly, this definition of "family"
in SR 8 and the expression "wholly dependent" appearing therein cannot
be brought in to interpret similar expression in Medical Rules.

The expression "wholly dependent" is not a term of art. IL has to be
given its due meaning with reference to the Rules in which it appears. We
H need not make any attempt to define the expression "wholly dependent" to

...
I

STATEv. M.P.OJHA:D.P. WADHWA,J.] 661

be applicable to all cases in all circumstances. We also need not look into A
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
B
above. Further, the expression "wholly dependent" as appearing in the
definition of family as given in Medical Rules cannot be confined to mere
financial 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 c
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 D
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
bis 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 case like the present one. There E
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. It is not necessary for us to look
F
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 travelling expenses.
G
The Tribunal has taken correct view of the matter. We uphold the
impugned judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal with costs.

R.K.S. Appeal dismissed.