STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. M P OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is 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 dependent 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 Rules'). This, according to Tribunal, would be so even where a separate Rule is applicable for medical treatment to a retired Government servant.

(2.) There are two respondents before us, 1st respondent is the father and the 2nd respondent is his son. The 1st respondent retired from Government service of the State and at the relevant time was drawing pension of Rupees 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 be a member of family of his son, the 2nd respondent. The controversy centered around the question if in the present case father was wholly dependent on his son.

(3.) The father developed serious heart ailment and the treatment which he required was not available in the State of Madhya Pradesh. By his application dated June 19, 1987 the son sought permission from the Director of Medical Education, M.P., for treatment and investigation respecting his father. This permission was sought on the strength of the certificate dated June 4, 1987 issued by Dr. 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 patient to get cardiological investigation. Dr. Bharani also certified that the 1st respondent might need coronary angiography with 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 Delhi or Madras etc. It is not necessary to refer to the correspondence that ensued between the 2nd respondent and the concerned medical authorities 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 1st respondent at Bombay Hospital, Bombay.