Enrollment as advocate just two days before accident does not exclude person from definition of 'dependent children' under UP Rules: Allahabad HC

Mere enrollment as advocate just two days before meeting with an accident does not exclude a person from definition of 'dependent children' under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules of 2011, the Allahabad High Court held (Chunni Lal Sonkar v. State of UP)/ .A government servant would, therefore, be entitled to claim reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on behalf of his son who had met with an accident just two days after his admission to the Bar, the Court ruled. "Mere enrollment as an advocate just before two days of the accident, which cannot be said that he was in gainful employment, so he cannot debar the son of the petitioner from the definition of 'dependent children'," the Court said..A single-judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, therefore, directed the State authorities to reconsider the claim of a retired constable for reimbursement of medical expenditure of his son, who got permanently disabled after the accident..The Court said that UP Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 is a "beneficial peace of legislation and it is a settled law that interpretation of such statutes should be very liberal." Since the petitioner's son was enrolled only two days before the accident, such enrollment cannot be termed as "gainful employment". "The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenditure in the light of the aforesaid observations and pass appropriate orders, if there is no other legal impediment as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order," the Court said. A beneficial legislation is a statute which purports to confer a benefit on individuals or a class of persons, the Court added. .The petitioner was a constable in Civil Police and retired on May 31, 2017, from the service. His son met with a serious road accident in 2013 and during the treatment at Sahara Hospital, Lucknow, both of his legs were amputated in order to save his life. The petitioner spent more than Rs. 10 lakh for the treatment. The petitioner moved a representation on July 27, 2013 before the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich for sanctioning Rs. 5 lakh for treatment. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich on September 26, 2013 to the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich and the matter later reached the High Court. The petition was disposed of by the High Court with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation and the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich was directed to pass appropriate directions. Subsequently, the representation was rejected by the Superintendent of Police. .The counsel for petitioner submitted that he was a government servant and, therefore, he is entitled to reimbursement of medical bills in pursuance of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011.It was submitted that his son, who is permanently disabled in the accident, falls within the definition of ‘family’ which defined under Rule 3(f) of 2011 Rules. "A government servant is entitled for medical reimbursement against the treatment of his son till he is employed or till attains the age of 25 years or is married, whichever is earlier," it was contended. .On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich. It was argued that since the son of the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and enrolled with the UP Bar Council, he cannot be treated as a dependent of the petitioner as provided in 2011 Rules. .The Court rejected the contentions advanced by the State counsel and said that mere enrollment of petitioner's son as an advocate just before two days of the accident cannot mean that the son had started earning and become financially independent. "The intention of the legislation is to defend the dependent of any Government employee till he/ she started earning. The State failed to show any evidence which proves that son of the petitioner was started earning after enrollment as an Advocate," the Court said .The Court also noted that as per the the Rules, a government servant is entitled to medical reimbursement against the treatment of his son till he starts earning or attains the age of 25 years or gets married whichever is earlier. In the instant case, the son of the petitioner had not attained the age of 25 years and was unmarried but he was enrolled with the Bar Council as an advocate just before two days of the accident. However, there was no material on record showing any financial earning by son of the petitioner as an advocate, the Court noted. .Hence, the plea was allowed and the order dated February 5, 2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich was set aside. .The Court also directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenditure in the light of the observations in the order..[Read order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.