Editors Pick

Father in Law not part of family to get Medical reimbursement: Punjab and Haryana HC [Read Judgment]

Ashok KM
10 Dec 2015 7:12 AM GMT
Father in Law not part of family to get Medical reimbursement: Punjab and Haryana HC [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Father in Law of a Government employee is not entitled to get medical reimbursement under the Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia held that father in law cannot be treated as part of family in the definition given in the rules.

A Government official, Monika had filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her claim for medical reimbursement on account of treatment of her father-in-law.

The definition of family, as per the Rules is that “Government employees' wife (including judicially separated wife) & husband in case of a female Government employee who is residing with & wholly dependent on him/her, legitimate children (including step & adopted children) up to two and father and mother residing with and wholly, dependent on the Government employee”

The court said that the definition implies that a family includes a female employee's husband who is residing with the said employee and is dependent on her, legitimate children (including step and adopted children) and the father and mother of the said employee, dependent upon the said Government employee. The court said that, in the absence of any such provision which includes Father in Law in the definition of family, the contention that father-in-law would be part of the family, cannot be accepted. The expanded version of the family, as canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner, can have no limit, the court said.

Read the Judgment here.

Next Story