- (1.) The claim in the present petition is for quashing the Annexure P-3 and clause (iii) in Annexure P/1 and a direction to the respondents to pay the amount of medical reimbursement incurred on the treatment of his son. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Advocate General on regular basis on 4.6.1997 in the pay scale of '4125-5600 plus special pay of Rs. 500/- in lieu of fee from the date of assuming charge of the post. The appointment letter is Annexure P/1 and as per clause (ii) of the same the appointment of the petitioner was mentioned to be contractual, purely temporary but as a whole time Government employee and Punjab Civil Services Rules were applicable in matter of leave and travelling allowance. The appointment letter(Annexure P/1) is as follows:- (i) The pay scale of the post will be Rs. 4125-125-5000-150-5600 plus Rs. 500.00 as special allowances in lieu of fee from the date they assume the charge of the post; (ii) They will be whole time Government employees and all criminal, civil and misc. work entrusted to them by the Advocate General, Punjab. (iii) Their appointments/services are contractual and purely temporary in nature which are terminable at any time without assigning any reasons/giving any notice. (iv) In the matter of leave and travelling allowances, they will be governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules. They will also be entitled to House Rent Allowance as per rate sanctioned by the Government from time to time.
(2.) It was also mentioned that his appointment was against a non pensionable post. He continued to hold the post of Assistant Advocate General till 17.04.2002 Vide memo dated 17.4.2002 His Excellency, the Governor of Punjab accepted the resignation of the petitioner amongst other law officers working in the office of Advocate General Punjab. The son of the petitioner by birth was diagnosed as suffering from ventricular septum defect (a cardiac emergency) and was advised immediate surgery. He was operated in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi on 27.4.1999 and the petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,66,494/- on his treatment. His claim for medical reimbursement was rejected on the ground that the same was not admissible in view of Rule 1(2) of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940. The same is reproduced here as under:- Rule I(2):-They shall apply to the following government Servants under the Punjab Government when on DUTY or LEAVE in India or in FOREIGN SERVICE in India (or when under SUSPENSION in India). (i) Members of provincial services (ii) xx xx xxx xxx xxxx (iii) xx xxx xxx xxx xxxx (iv) Contract Officers whose agreements provide for free medical attendance.
(3.) It is further the case of the petitioner that his letter of appointment not only mentioned the appointment to be in a regular scale but also that the appointment was as a whole time Govt. Employee. He was also granted regular scale/increments as well as the revised pay scales on revision of the scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the date of his joining. Thus, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner is in the realm of Master Servant relationship and not that of contract of personal service. The Government being a welfare State cannot deny the basic facility of medical reimbursement which constitutes an integral part of the right to life.;