UP Govt Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules | Legal Heirs Can Claim Medical Expenses If Beneficiary Dies: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has recently, read down Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 to include legal heirs of the beneficiary for raising claims for medical compensation in case the beneficiary is incapacitated from submitting the same. The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,“…applying the principles of 'reading...
The Allahabad High Court has recently, read down Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 to include legal heirs of the beneficiary for raising claims for medical compensation in case the beneficiary is incapacitated from submitting the same.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“…applying the principles of 'reading down' we hold that the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011 should be read down so as to include the submission of a claim even by the legal heirs of the beneficiary where the beneficiary dies or is incapacitated from submitting the reimbursement claim himself and there is no other surviving beneficiary.”
Beneficiary is defined under Rule 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 as:
“(b) "Beneficiary" means Government Servants and their families, retired Government Servants and their families and in case of deceased Government Servants such meinbers (sic) of their family as are eligible for family pension.”
Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 states that beneficiary may submit the claim for medical reimbursement within 3 months after completion of the treatment.
Petitioner claimed reimbursement of medical expenses incurred due to his father's prolonged illness under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011. Petitioner's father superannuated from the post of Deputy Registrar (II), Gorakhpur.
Since the petitioner's claims exceeded Rs. 2lakhs, the papers were forwarded to the Inspector General of Registration for approval. However, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Camp Office, Lucknow, rejected the claim on grounds that petitioner was not the beneficiary of the scheme but a legal heir of the beneficiary who was not entitled to seek such claims.
Petitioner approached the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal whereby direction was issued to the Principal Secretary, Stamp & Registration Department, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, to pass fresh reasoned and speaking order. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected again on the same grounds.
Accordingly, petitioner approached the High Court challenging the rejection order as well as the validity of Rule 16 in so far as it applied only to beneficiaries and not their legal heirs.
The Court observed that the rules do not consider the situation where a beneficiary passes away during treatment, then no 'beneficiary' as defined under the Rules would be existing and legal heirs would be deprived of seeking the benefit of the beneficial legislation. It held that the object of the beneficial legislation would be frustrated if the benefit is not extended to the legal heirs and family members of the deceased/ incapacitated employee who was the beneficiary.
“After giving anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the view that the term 'beneficiary' appearing in Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011, for the purpose of claiming expenses towards treatment, should be given a more liberal and expansive meaning to make it workable by applying the principle of 'reading down', so as to include within its ambit 'legal heirs' in a situation where there is no other surviving beneficiary who may file the claim and the beneficiary undergoing treatment has died or is in an incapacitated state.”
Holding that Rule 16 of Rules, 2011 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court included legal heirs within the definition of 'beneficiary' under Rule 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011.
Though the petitioner had obtained a succession certificate, the Court held that “a person should not be forced to obtain a succession certificate declaring him to be a legal heir in a situation where no such dispute exists.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Chandra Choor Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp And Registration Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 162