1 Ashish Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Awadh Kishore Verma Aged About 38 Years v. 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhavan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26032-DB NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 17:44:02 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5526 of 2025 1 Ashish Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Awadh Kishore Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Patelpara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents/State
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Goutam Khetrapal , Advocate. : : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 20.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. Declare that Rule 3(d) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 is ultra vires the Constitution of India, being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21. b) Issue a writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of certiorari to Respondent to accept the reimbursement claim of the Petitioner's brother. c) Issue a writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent to amend the Rule 3(d) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. d) Pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that Ashish Kumar Verma, who is presently working as an Assistant Grade-II at Government High School, 3 Bhafauli. District Surguja, Chhattisgarh was appointed on compassionate grounds following the demise of his father, a government servant. The petition challenges the rejection of the Petitioner's medical reimbursement claim for treatment expenses incurred for his younger brother, Late Manish Kumar Verma, who was suffering from a prolonged illness and was entirely dependent on the Petitioner both financially and physically. The Petitioner had submitted the claim along with supporting documents, including an affidavit affirming the dependency, and records showing the brother's name included in the family list at the time of his appointment. However, the Director, Medical Education, and subsequently the Under Secretary, Medical Education Department, rejected the claim referring Rule 3(d) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, which does not include dependent ‘siblings’ within the definition of "family." Further, the Petitioner made a representation seeking reconsideration, also referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. M.P. Ojha [AIR 1998 SC 659], which held that "wholly dependent" should be understood in both financial and physical terms. Nevertheless, the authorities adhered to a literal interpretation of the Rule and refused to entertain the claim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of the petitioner’s medical reimbursement claim on the sole ground that his younger brother does not fall within the definition of “family” under Rule b(d) of the C.G. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 is arbitrary and unreasonable and contrary to the constitutional mandate 4 and hence the same be declared as ultra vires. He further submits that brother is included in the definition of “family” in the other states and also in the All India Services (Medical Attendence) Rules, 1954. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that the medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of Rule 3 (d) of the C.G. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 and it is just and proper and needs no interference of this court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Rule 3 of the Rules, 2013 provides the definitions. Sub-Rule (d) of Rule 3 defined the word ‘family’, which reads thus : "Family" means- (i) wife or husband of an employee; (ii) employee's parent, minor son, unmarried daughter, in which legally adopted child/children and step child/children is/are also included, who is/are fully dependent on the employee; (iii) if a divorced daughter(s) is/are fully dependent on the employee then, she/they shall be treated as included in his/her family for the purpose of medical re-imbursement; iv) the parents of a woman employee who are fully dependent on her, residing generally throughout year along with the women employee and they have no other support except her and also no any other source of income: Provided that a written declaration should be taken from the woman employee in this context, that her parents are fully dependent on her and they reside with her and they have neither any other source of income nor they have any other support; (v) in case of specialized treatment, the pensioner parent of the government servant shall also be considered as included in the family.” 8. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is quite vivid that 5 ‘brother’ has not been included in the definition of ‘family’. So far as the contention fo the petitioner that the dependent brother has been included within the purview of family member in All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954 and other states is concerned, merely inclusion of dependent brother within the definition of family in other states and All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954 the same is not sufficient to question the constitutional validity of the Rules, 2013 which have been framed by the State Government of C.G. 9. Considering the submission made, we are of the view that rules followed in other states cannot be a basis to challenge a rule in this State. Thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision made by the concerned authority relating to dismissal of petitioner’s medical reimbursement claim. 10. Accordingly, the present petition, being bereft of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 11. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse of law if aggrieved by the order of this court. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Jyoti