CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) BALWANT SINGH .....APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 26.05.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 15.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 15.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof. Not applicable CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G,Haryana * * * * ANURADHA 2026.07.15 03:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) 2 SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 14.10.2025( Annexure P-3) issued by respondent no.3 whereby medical claim for reimbursement has been rejected in reference with instruction dated 14.12.2007(Annexure P-4) and orally said Channo Devi(Mother/dependant) is not dependant upon the petitioner as she is getting old age pension which is arbitrary in nature and further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse amount of Rs.1,30,073/- as per bill dated 17.07.2024(Annexure P-2). 2. Factual matrix of the case unfolds that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in Haryana State Transport department and now posted as Sub inspector in the office of Respondent no.3 and four family members are dependant on the petitioner. The respondents have adopted Punjab Services Medical Attendance Rules,1940 and have also framed policy dated 30.11.1993 whereby some of the hospitals have been approved where dependants can avail treatment. The Health Services department Haryana has issued letter dated 27.05.2023 to all heads of all the departments and other concerned department whereby empanelment has been approved to private hospitals for providing medical facilities to Haryana govt employees, pensioners and their dependents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that mother of the petitioner namely Channo Devi aged about 85 years had undergone heart surgery at max Super Speciality Hospital, Near Civil hospital, Phase VI, Mohali on 13.07.2024 where stent was implanted and she was discharged on 17.07.2024 and the total expenditure came out to be Rs.1,30,073/-. It is ANURADHA 2026.07.15 03:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) 3 contended that the mother/Channo Devi is fully dependent on the petitioner and to reimburse the medical bill, petitioner submitted an essential certificate and the application dated 29.07.2024 vide diary no.3308 which was rejected by the Health department in reference to instruction dated 14.12.2007 vide letter dated 14.10.2025. It is further contended that the rejection is purely arbitrary only on the basis of the fact that mother/Channo devi is getting old age pension which is only Rs.3000/- pe month. 4. Per contra, State counsel at the very outset contends that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed as the mother of the petitioner is not dependent on the petitioner since as per the family ID, the annual income of the petitioner’s father has been shown to be Rs.75000/- to 1,00000/- and the annual income of the mother/Channo devi is shown as Rs.25000/- to 50,000/- therefore the parents of the petitioner cannot be said to be dependent on the petitioner completely. 5. Heard counsel for the parties at length. 6. Having perused the record at hand, this court finds merit in the instant writ petition. It is admitted position that the claim of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that the treatment was unnecessary, fabricated or unsupported by record. The treatment undertaken by the petitioner’s mother, hospitalisation and the expenditure incurred thereupon stand duly substantiated from the official medical record (Annexure P-2). Indeed, the rejection rests solely upon a technical interpretation of the instructions dated 14.12.2007 and by treating the annual income of the parents of the petitioner as sufficient enough to bear the medical expense in question. ANURADHA 2026.07.15 03:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) 4 7. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of the court is legallu unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles governing welfare legislation. The Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940 include wholly dependent parents within the ambit of “family”. The relevant Rule is reproduced hereinbelow:= “2. Family members of employees who are also earning members are not entitled to reimbursement of medical charges unless they are also the State Govt. Employees. A Govt. Employee can, thus claim reimbursement of medical charges in respect of those members of family who are wholly dependent upon him. (Punjab Govt. Letter No. 1491HB1/69 dated 29.12.1969)” 8. Significantly, the statutory rules themselves do not prescribe any rigid monetary ceiling for determining dependency. The embargo sought to be imposed by the respondents emanates only from an executive instructions dated 14.12.2007. It is trite that executive instructions cannot override, dilute or curtail the substantive benefit flowing from statutory rules. Once the Rules recognise wholly dependent parents as members of the family, the concept of dependency cannot be constricted through administrative fiat in a manner that defeats the very object of reimbursement. 9. An identical controversy came up for consideration before this court in Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana and others, CWP-4892-2016, wherein the claim for the reimbursement had declined on the ground that father of the employee was allegedly earning more than Rs.3500/- per month. 10. While interpreting the expression ‘wholly dependent’ , this court feels apposite to mention the judgement of the Apex Court passed in State of ANURADHA 2026.07.15 03:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) 5 Madhya Pradesh Vs M.P.Ojha, Civil Appeal No.1368 of 1990, wherein it is has been held that dependency is not confined merely to financial dependence but includes physical dependence as well. It was further held that executive instructions cannot modify statutory rules and that the question of dependency has to be examined in the factual backdrop of each individual case. 11. The observations made by the Apex Court in M.P. Ojha alongwith (supra) alongwith Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940 merit particular consideration. The Apex Court held that the expression “wholly dependent” is required to receive a purposive and flexible interpretation keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by the Rules so framed. It was specifically observed that for aged and ailing parents, dependence may not be merely financial but physical as well. Receipt of a meagre pension or social welfare allowance by an elderly parent cannot , by itself, disentitle him from being treated as dependent upon his son or daughter, especially where serious illness and advancing age render such parent incapable of independently sustaining medical treatment. Relevant extract is reproduced herein below:- 12. The expression "wholly dependent" is not a term of art. It has to be given its due meaning with reference to the Rules in which it appears. We need not make any attempt to define the expression "wholly dependent" to be applicable to all cases in all circumstances. We also need not look into other provisions of law where such expression is defined. That would likely to lead to results which the relevant Rules would not have contem- plated. The expression "wholly dependent" has to be understood in the context in which it is used keeping in view the object of the particular Rules where it is contained. We cannot curtail the meaning of "wholly de- pendent" by reading into this the definition as given in SR 8 which has been reproduced above. Further, the ANURADHA 2026.07.15 03:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) 6 expression "wholly dependent" as appearing in the definition of family as given in Medical Rules cannot be confined to mere financial dependence. Ordinarily dependence means fĩn- ancial dependence but for a member of family it would mean other sup- port, may be physical, as well. To be "wholly dependent" would therefore include both financial and physical dependence. If support required is physical “and a member of the family is otherwise financially sound he may not necessarily be wholly dependent. Here the father was 70 years of age and was sick and it could not be said that he was not wholly depend- ent on his son. Son has to look after him in his old age. Even otherwise by getting a pension of Rs. 414 per month which by any standard is a paltry amount it could not be said that the father was not "wholly dependent" on his son. That the father had a separate capacity of being a retired Gov- ernment servant is immaterial if his case falls within the Medical Rules being a member of the family of his son and wholly dependent on him. A flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying the Rules in a case like the present one. There is no dispute that the son took his father to Bombay for treatment for his serious ailment after getting due permission from the competent authority. It was submitted before us that the father being a retired Government servant could himself get sanc- tion for treatment outside the State as a special case from the competent authority. It is not necessary for us to look into this aspect of the matter as we are satisfied that under the relevant Medical Rules, the father was member of the family of his son and was wholly dependent on him and thes 2nd respondent was thus fully entitled to reimbursement for the expenses incurred on the treatment of his father and other travelling expenses.” 12. Reimbursement of medical expenses is not a bounty distributed at the whim of the administration, rather it is a welfare measure intended to secure ANURADHA 2026.07.15 03:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-38433-2025 (O&M) 7 humane condition of existence for government employees and their dependent family members. 13. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner solely on the basis of income ceiling prescribed under executive instructions cannot be sustained, particularly when the treatment and expenditure incurred by the petitioner stand duly established form the record. The amount received by the father and the mother as pension cannot be construed as sufficient independent income so as to deny the benefit of medical reimbursement. The action of the respondents is thus arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the settled principles of law. 14. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 14.10.2025( Annexure P-3) issued by respondent no.3 whereby medical claim for reimbursement has been rejected in reference with instruction dated 14.12.2007(Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to fully release the medical claim of the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,30,073/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date it became due till its actual realisation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event the amount is not released within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry interest at 9% per annum. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16. Ordered accordingly. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 15.07.2026 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ANURADHA 2026.07.15 03:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document