1 2025:CGHC:37286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4420 of 2021  Smt. Brigit Lakra Wife Of Shri Neelam Sanjeev Xalxo Aged About 29 Years Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector (M), Chhattisgarh Arms Force, R/o. Qtr. No. 77/84, First Battalion, Caf Line, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Special Director General Of Police C.A.F. Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Arms Force - 01, Police Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Arms Force-01, Police Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5. Commandant First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 30-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 11-05- 2021 passed by the respondent No.2. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant medical reimbursement claimed by the petitioner which is duly assessed by the Civil Surgeon in respect of medical treatment expenses of her sister namely Enuprashan Lakara. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 2) Facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, namely Late Jay Ram Lakara, died in a naxal attack and he left behind his widow and his two daughters – the petitioner and one Enuprashan Lakara. The petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment, and she was granted a compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector(M). The unmarried sister of the petitioner, namely Enuprashan Lakara, who is dependent on the petitioner, is suffering from a serious ailment, namely Myasthenia Gravis, for which she requires continuous medical treatment. It is pleaded that the petitioner has incurred a total of Rs. 10 lakh on her sister’s treatment, and she moved applications for the medical reimbursement for Rs. 2,91,780/- and Rs. 80,025/- on 23.05.2024 and 08.07.2024, respectively. Applications moved by the petitioner were forwarded to respondent No. 2, who vide order dated 11.05.2021, rejected the applications on the ground that in the C.G. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, there is no mention of the unmarried sister in the definition of “Family”. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the Rules, 2013, the unmarried sister is not included in the definition clause, according to provisions of the Fundamental Rules, the respondent authorities are under an obligation to reimburse the medical expenses 3 incurred in the treatment of the petitioner’s sister, who is fully dependent on her. He has placed reliance on the notification issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 09.11.2009, wherein the family has been defined, and brothers/sisters/parents/children of a government servant come within the definition of the Family. He prays to set-aside the order impugned and allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in rule 3 (घ) of the Rules, 2013, the sister of a government servant is not included within the definition of “family”. He further submits that, as specific rules have been framed with regard to the medical reimbursement, the fundamental rules would not apply. He contends that the notification dated 09.11.2009, relied on by Mr. Dhurandhar, is applicable only to the police personnel posted in Naxal-affected areas, and the petitioner is not posted in a Naxal-affected area; therefore, the petitioner would not get the benefit of the said notification. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (M) on a compassionate basis under the respondents. Sister of the petitioner, namely Enuprashan Lakara, is suffering from a disease called Myasthenia Gravis, and she is fully dependent on the petitioner. Petitioner incurred huge medical expenses in the treatment of her sister. She submitted medical bills to the tune of Rs. 2,91,780/- and Rs. 80,025/- on 23.05.2024 and 08.07.2014, and these bills were rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 11.05.2021 on the ground that the sister of a government servant does not come within 4 the definition of “family”. 7) Rule 3 (घ) of the Rules, 2013 reads as under:- (घ) "परिवा" से अभिप्रेत है - *(i) शासेकीय सेवकी की पत्नी य उसेकी पतित, (ii) ऐसे शासेकीय सेवकी की सेथ रहैनी वले और उसे पर पर्णत आभि!त उसेकी मात-तिपत, धमाज सेन्तनी, जिजनीमा' तिवधिधकी रूप से गो+द ले गोई सेन्तनी तथ से.तले सेन्तनी सेम्मि0मालिलेत है । 8) A bare reading of the above-quoted provision makes it clear that the dependent sister does not come within the definition of “family”. With regard to the contention made by Mr. Dhurandhar to the effect that the sister comes within the purview of “family” as per the Fundamental Rules, it cannot be accepted, as there is a specific provision for medical reimbursement, namely the C.G. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. It is also manifest that the circular dated 09.11.2009 would not apply in the present case, as the circular will apply to the police personnel posted in naxal-affected areas; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of that notification. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.31 17:27:48 +0530