MIRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Government doctor working under the State of Bihar. She continues to be in service of the State. She is married to one Dr Ram Kishore Singh, who also happens to be a doctor by profession. The issue which brings the petitioner before the Court is the order of rejection communicated to her by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar through letter dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure- I). By virtue of this decision, the petitioner has been told that the Department of Finance has decided to reject the claim for medical reimbursement of expenses incurred by the petitioner on the treatment of husband of the petitioner for the reason that he was an income tax payee for the year 2010-11 till 2012. 13. Therefore, the Department of Finance opined that the husband is not dependent upon the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner, therefore, is seeking quashing of Annexure-1 with a direction upon the respondents to extend the benefit of medical treatment as also reimbursement of expenses incurred therein. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner surely files income tax return but looking at the returns it is evident that it is more with the object of compliance with law. The returns do not disclose big income but is almost three lakhs a year. He seriously challenges the rational as well as the decision of the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner that mere filing of return does not make the husband of the petitioner not dependent upon the petitioner or whether it absolves the respondent State authorities from honouring the obligation of meeting the medical expenses of the dependent.

(3.) On the question of law, attention of the Court was drawn to a similar kind of dispute which originated from the State of Madhya Pradesh and travelled to Hon'ble Apex Court. The case in question is State of Madhya Pradesh & others v. M.P.Ojha & another, 1998 AIR(SC) 659. The basic facts are that the son was a Government servant in the State of Madhya Pradesh. His father had developed heart ailment which required treatment beyond the boundaries of the State of M.P. He sought permission for treatment of his father. The permission was obtained. When it came down to reimbursement, the State raised certain objection that the father was a pensioner and, therefore, cannot be said to be dependent upon the son, therefore, the obligation of the State does not exist or subsist.