Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Medical Reimbursement Claim For Father’s Treatment, Says Not ‘Wholly Dependent’

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a government employee for the treatment of his father, holding that the parent could not be treated as “wholly dependent” under the applicable service rules.

A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed that mere assertion of dependency is insufficient without clear disclosure of the parent’s income and financial status.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Anil Kumar Swami, who was working as a stenographer in the District court at Damoh. He had approached the High court after authorities rejected his claim for reimbursement of Rs.1,63,858 spent on the cardiac treatment of his father at Shalby Hospital in Jabalpur. According to the petitioner, his father suffered from a serious heart ailment and required stenting treatment.

Swami told the court that his father, a retired Head Clerk from the Excise Department, had superannuated in 1995. He submitted that although his father was receiving pension, the amount was too meagre to meet the substantial medical expenses incurred during the heart procedure. On this basis, he claimed that his father should be treated as dependent upon him for the purpose of medical reimbursement.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.P. Ojha, where a retired father receiving a very small pension was considered dependent on his son for reimbursement purposes. He also cited earlier decisions of the High Court which followed the same principle while interpreting the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958.

However, the bench noted that the legal position depends on the specific facts of each case. Referring to Rule 2(d) of the 1958 Rules, the Court explained that the term “family” includes parents only when they are residing with and are wholly dependent on the government servant. The judges emphasised that financial dependency must be demonstrated through clear and complete disclosure of income and resources.

In the present case, the court observed that the petitioner had not disclosed the exact pension being drawn by his father. The impugned administrative order, however, indicated that the pension exceeded Rs.1,00,000 per annum. Apart from a general statement claiming that his father was dependent on him, the petition contained no details about the father’s monthly income, assets, or other financial sources.

The bench noted that such omissions were significant because the concept of “wholly dependent” requires a factual assessment of whether the parent is actually unable to bear medical expenses independently. “There is only a declaration by the petitioner that his father was dependent upon him, but either his monthly income or the income from other sources has not been disclosed,” the court recorded.

It further observed that the earlier precedent cited by the petitioner involved a situation where the parent was receiving a negligible pension of Rs.414 per month, making the dependency evident. In contrast, the present case lacked transparent financial disclosure and therefore did not satisfy the requirement laid down under the service rules. The court emphasised that reimbursement claims must strictly comply with the statutory framework.

After examining the record, the bench concluded that the authorities were justified in rejecting the reimbursement request. The judges held that the material placed before the court did not establish that the petitioner’s father was wholly dependent on him within the meaning of the rules. Consequently, the administrative decision could not be termed illegal or arbitrary.

Accordingly, the court ultimately declined to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority rejecting the claim for medical reimbursement. Holding that no illegality was made out, the bench dismissed the writ petition. “In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order rejecting the claim seeking reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on father’s treatment,” the court said while concluding that the petition was devoid of substance and to be dismissed.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Swami v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: March 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal