Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9634 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tejasvi Misra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2Petitioner's deceased wife was a retired employee of respondent Ghaziabad Development Authority and before her death, a huge amount of about Rs.45 lakhs was spent on her treatment, therefore, petitioner approached the respondents for its reimbursement, however, by the impugned order dated

26.12.2024, claim of the petitioner was rejected on ground that there is no provision for medical reimbursement after retirement of employee. Contents of order dated 26.12.2024 is reproduced hereinafter: "

कृपय꾁롺आपक꘷鴡्ቛ 꾁롺र꾁롺अपन砛漋पत्न砛漋स्व䂷匲्ቦ 砛漋मत砛漋न砛漋लमर꾁롺न砛漋,

वरिर㛷┵सह꾁롺यककी

ब砛漋म꾁롺र砛漋क꘷鴡दौर꾁롺नदिदन꾁롺ंक15.11.2022 स꘷鴡08.05.2023

क꘷鴡मध्यकीअवध砛漋

लगभगरु0 45,00,000/-

क꘷鴡दिबल鳐鎡क꾁롺भुगत꾁롺नकर꾁롺न꘷鴡ह꘷鴡तुदिबल鳐鎡कीछ꾁롺य꾁롺्ቚतित

्ቚ स्तुतकीगय砛漋है꾮셑इससम्बन्धम腜觷आपक鳐鎡अवगतकरन꾁롺हैदिकस्व䂷匲्ቦ 砛漋मत砛漋

न砛漋लमर꾁롺न砛漋.

वरिर㛷┵सह꾁롺यक्ቚ 꾁롺तिधकर१ቻस꘷鴡60

व眛岫1 आयुपू१ቻ1 करन꘷鴡परदिदन꾁롺कं

30.06.2022

क鳐鎡स꘷鴡व꾁롺दिनवृ鏣諮ह鳐鎡चुकीहै꾮셑स्व䂷匲्ቦ 砛漋मत砛漋न砛漋लमर꾁롺न砛漋, वरिर㛷┵

सह꾁롺यकक꘷鴡स꘷鴡व꾁롺दिनवृ鏣諮ह鳐鎡ज꾁롺न꘷鴡क꘷鴡उपर꾁롺न्ततिचदिकत्स꾁롺दिबल꾁롺भुगत꾁롺नह꘷鴡तु्ቚ स्तुत

दिकय꘷鴡गय꘷鴡है꾮셑अत�क꾁롺म1च꾁롺र砛漋कीस꘷鴡व꾁롺दिनवृ鏣諮ह鳐鎡न꘷鴡क꘷鴡उपर꾁롺न्तब砛漋म꾁롺र砛漋क꘷鴡क鳐鎡ስॠभ砛漋

मैति9कलदिबल鳐鎡क꾁롺भुगत꾁롺नदिकय꾁롺ज꾁롺न꘷鴡क꾁롺्ቚ 꾁롺वध꾁롺ननह砛漋है꾮셑"

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ -A No.10537 of 2023, Brijesh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, employee of Prayagraj Development Authority that all the authorities are bound to follow the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 (in short, 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011') and submits that respondent Ghaziabad Development Authority is also bound to follow the 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011'. Paragraph nos.27 to 32 of Brijesh Bahadur Singh (supra) is reproduced hereinafter: "27. Much before the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011 were enacted, the question about entitlement to pension of members of centralised service under the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 arose before a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Praveen Kumar Agarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) ILR 1 All 21. Though, their Lordships found for the retired members of the centralised service a right to receive pension on a plain reading of Section 5-A read with Section 24 of the Act of 1973, the right was held traceable also to the provisions of Rule 37(3) and Rule 34(4) of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 read with the provisions contained in the Financial Handbook and Civil Services Regulations, entitling employees of the State Government to pension. In Praveen Kumar Agarwal (supra), it was held by their Lordships of the Division Bench: "40. There is one other aspect of the matter. Rule 34 of the Rules, covers all the employees of the Development Authorities with regard to retiral pension and other retiral benefits. Rule 37 categorically provides that matter not covered under Sub-Rule (1) and (2), shall be 2 of 7 governed by all such orders as the State Government may deem proper. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 37 has been meant to fill up vacuum. Sub-rule (2) specifically provides that matters not covered by these Rules or by special orders, the members of service shall be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Orders applicable generally, to U.P. Government Servant serving in connection with the affairs of the State.

¶41The two Government orders dated 4.3.1983 and

17.3.1983 seem to have been issued to clarify the position keeping in view the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37. Admittedly, employees of State Government are being paid pension in pursuance of provisions contained in Financial Handbook and Civil Services Regulations. Accordingly, unless the separate provision is made, the petitioners case shall be governed by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of 1985 rules."

¶28Until time, that Praveen Kumar Agarwal was decided, there were no separate rules governing the entitlement to retirement pension for members of the centralised service, and, therefore, in the concluding remarks in Paragraph No.41 of the report in Praveen Kumar Agarwal, it was said that the petitioner's case shall be governed by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985. At that time, by virtue of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 aforesaid, the right to receive pension for members of the centralised service would be the same as those of State Government employees serving in connection with affairs of the State under the rules applicable to them, be it the Financial Handbook or the Civil Service Regulations. Now, that position stands changed with the framing of the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, which apply to a retired member of the service by virtue of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 34.

¶29However, so far as medical reimbursement is concerned, the position would be the same as it was before their Lordships in Praveen Kumar Agarwal and the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985, would ipso facto attract the provisions of the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 to retired members of the centralised service and their 3 of 7 families for the purpose of reimbursement of medical expenses.

¶30More or less on similar line of reasoning, a learned Single Judge of this Court, when confronted with the issue in Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Lko., 2023:AHC-LKO:32771, regarding reimbursement of medical bills of a retired employee of the centralised service, who had claimed against the Banda Development Authority, held: "15. The second issue with regard to payment of medical bills, it is clear from the records that the benefits which were accorded by the State Government to their employees were adopted by the respondent no.2 on 18.11.2015, thus, there is no reason why the respondents will not pay the medical reimbursement allowance which have been duly verified by the CMO and are pending before the respondent no.1……"

¶31This Court is, therefore, of opinion that the petitioner has clearly established his right to medical reimbursement of expenses incurred in his wife's treatment, about which there is no issue that she falls within the definition of his 'family' under the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 applicable in the case.

¶32In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, PDA (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Let a mandamus issue to the Vice-Chairman, PDA and the Secretary, PDA to reimburse the medical bill submitted by the petitioner for his wife's treatment on 23.07.2021, after verification in accordance with law and the Rules applicable, within a month of receipt of a copy of this order. "

¶4Learned counsel for the respondents submits that each Development Authority has to give consent for adopting 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' and by referring a part of judgment of Brijesh Bahadur Singh (supra) submits that in the case of Prayagraj Development Authority by way of a resolution 4 of 7 dated 6.4.2013, 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' were adopted, therefore, co-ordinate Bench proceeded to decide the matter and held that medical expenses incurred in the treatment of petitioner's (therein) wife shall be reimbursed in accordance with the prescribed rules, whereas, in the present case, Ghaziabad Development Authority has not adopted 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011', therefore, the ratio of Brijesh Bahadur Singh (supra) may not be followed.

¶5In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any averment or document that 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' were adopted by the respondent Ghaziabad Development Authority.

¶6I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

¶7It is not under much dispute that State of U.P. by memo dated

17.4.2012 addressed to Vice Chairman of all the Development Authorities including the respondent Authority to give consent to adopt 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011'. However, in the present case, there is nothing on record that 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' were adopted by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Though, Vice Chairman and the Board of Directors of concerned respondent authority were under legal obligation to take a decision on the communication, therefore, it is directed that in case no decision has been taken on the communication till date, same shall be taken within a period of three weeks from today.

¶8Now the Court proceeds to consider as to whether in the absence of above factual aspect that 'The Medical Attendance 5 of 7 Rules, 2011' were not adopted by the respondent Development Authority, ratio of Brijesh Bahadur Singh (supra) would be applicable to the petitioner or not.

¶9I have carefully perused the judgement of co-ordinate Bench passed in Brijesh Bahadur Singh (supra) and find that Development Authority involved in the said case has already adopted 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' and therefore, co-ordinate Bench proceeded to hold that wife of the employee i.e. petitioner therein would be entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in the treatment of her wife co-ordinate Bench held that Centralised Service Rules, 1985 would be ipso-facto attract the provisions of 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' to the retired employees of centralised service and their families for the purpose of reimbursement of medical expenses.

¶10Aforesaid writ petition was allowed with a direction to consider the reimbursement of expenses incurred in the treatment of wife of the employee i.e. the petitioner therein.

¶11Co-ordinate Bench has also taken note of judgment passed by Lucknow Bench in the case of Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning Lko:AHC:LKO:32771 which was in regard to Banda Development Authority that the said Authority has adopted 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' .

¶12The Co-ordinate Bench has not considered the issue as to whether in absence of adoption of 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011', whether same will be applicable to the employees of the said authority or not. 6 of 7

¶13Learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to show any consideration in regard to above referred issue in Brijesh Bahadur Singh (supra), therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner in terms of ratio of Brijesh Bahadur Singh (supra). However, still Court is of opinion that in case 'The Medical Attendance Rules, 2011' are adopted by Ghaziabad Development Authority, petitioner's claim can be considered subject to whether such adoption would be retrospective or prospective.

¶14Court leaves the above issue at the discretion of the respondent Authority i.e. Ghaziabad Development Authority.

¶15With aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 SB 7 of 7 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad