1 2025:CGHC:36655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3304 of 2025 1 - Ashish Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Awadh Kishore Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Patelpara, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 28/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of mandamus, directing the 2 Respondent to make necessary arrangement in Rule 3(d) of C.G. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. b) Direct the respondent authorities to re- consider the representation of petitioner (Annexure P/6), in accordance with law, within stipulated time. c) Pass any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs of the petitioner. ” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Grade- II at Government High School, Bhafauli, District Sarguja, C.G. He was appointed on compassionate grounds following the demise of his father, a government servant. The petitioner challenges the rejection of the petitioner’s medical reimbursement claim for treatment expenses incurred for his younger brother, Late Manish Kumar Verma, who was suffering from a prolonged illness and was entirely dependent on the petitioner both financially and physically. He would further submits that the petitioner had submitted the claim along with supporting documents, including a sworn affidavit affirming the dependency, and records showing the brother’s name included in the family list at the time of his appointment. However, the Director, Medical Education and subsequently the Under Secretary, Medical Education Department, rejected the claim citing Rule 3(d) of the 3 C.G. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, which does not include dependent siblings within the definition of “family”. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of Rule 3(d) of the C.G. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 and it is just and proper and needs no interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Annexure P/1 is the appointment order of the petitioner which clearly shows that the petitioner has been appointed under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme and condition no. 2 of the appointment order says: “fu;qfDr Ik’pkr~ ;fn fdlh Hkh le; ;g izekf.kr gks tkosa fd ‘kkldh; lsod ds }kjk ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dk vuns[kk fd;k tk jgk gS] vFkok lgh <+x ls Hkj.k&iks”k.k ugha fd;k tk jgk gS rks fu;qfDr vkns’k fujLr fd;k tk ldsxkA” 6. Therefore, looking to the nature of dispute the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/6) in accordance with law, rules, regulations. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima