Denial Of Medical Reimbursement To Female Employee's In-Laws Under 1940 Punjab Services Rules Needs Reconsideration: High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1940 which includes only biological parents and not the in-laws of a female employee for the grant of benefit of medical reimbursement, needs reconsideration.Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said, "...female employees, who are residing with their in-laws in their matrimonial home and the in-laws...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1940 which includes only biological parents and not the in-laws of a female employee for the grant of benefit of medical reimbursement, needs reconsideration.
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said, "...female employees, who are residing with their in-laws in their matrimonial home and the in-laws are dependent upon the said female employee, denial of the medical facility to them and rather extending the same to her biological parents, needs re-consideration at the hands of the State."
The Court also noted that the said issue has already been considered by the Government of India and "an option has been given to the female employees that they can choose either their biological parents or parents in-law, who are dependent upon the Government female employee for the grant of medical facility."
These observations were made while hearing the plea of a female employee, who challenged the provision of Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1940 wherein the the definition of 'family' includes only her biological parents and not the in-laws for the grant of benefit of medical reimbursement even when the said female employee is residing in her matrimonial home with her in-laws after marriage.
Counsel for the petitioner, Ish Puneet Singh argued that the Rules were framed in the year 1940 and the same have not been re-considered keeping in view the object sought to be achieved under the Rules in question.
He further added that, once after the marriage, the female employee is living with her in-laws, the option should be given to the female employees as to whether, they will like to extend the benefit of medical reimbursement under 1940 Rules to the biological parents or to the in-laws who are dependent upon her after marriage.
State counsel submitted that it is the prerogative of the State to decide as to who will be eligible for the grant of medical reimbursement and once after due consideration, the definition of the family has been envisaged under 1940 Rules, the petitioner cannot direct the State to change the said definition to suit her and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "The said Rules were issued with the purpose that a family which is dependent upon an employee, should also get the medical facilities."
"By keeping the said purpose in mind, in case of the unmarried female employees or the divorced female employees or separated female employees, there is no problem as the biological parents have already been included in the definition of the 'family' so as to get the medical reimbursement in case, any of the member of the family envisaged under 1940 Rules is dependent upon the female Government employee," it added.
Justice Sethi highlighted that once the intention and purpose to achieve under 1940 Rules is to grant the medical facility to the dependent of an employee and a female employee is residing in her matrimonial home and the in-laws are dependent upon her, "benefit should have been given to such in-laws in order to achieve the purpose envisaged under 1940 Rules."
The Court also said that once an option has been given by the Government of India to its female employees to either choose the biological family or the in-laws family for the grant of medical facility, the State needs to re-consider this issue so as to suitably amend the definition of "family" as envisaged under 1940 Rules.
In the light of the above, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab in consultation with the Department of Health and Family Welfare to consider the issue and take appropriate decision in 8 weeks.
The matter is listed for August 23, for further consideration.
Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Title: SWARANJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS