No reimbursement for medical bills of fathers-in-law, says HC | punjab$chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Sep 24, 2017-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

No reimbursement for medical bills of fathers-in-law, says HC

Woman government employees cannot claim reimbursement for medical expenses incurred on their fathers-in-law, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled.

punjab Updated: Dec 09, 2015 20:22 IST
Surender Sharma
Dismissing a petition by Monika, an employee of the Punjab government, a bench of justice GS Sandhawalia said father-in-law did not fall under the category of ‘family’.
Dismissing a petition by Monika, an employee of the Punjab government, a bench of justice GS Sandhawalia said father-in-law did not fall under the category of ‘family’.(HT Photo)

Woman government employees cannot claim reimbursement for medical expenses incurred on their fathers-in-law, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled.

Dismissing a petition by Monika, an employee of the Punjab government, a bench of justice GS Sandhawalia said father-in-law did not fall under the category of ‘family’.

Monika had moved court on December 2014 after a government order denied reimbursement of expenses she had made on her father-in-law’s treatment.

Monika had told the court that she had spent Rs 1.45 lakh on the treatment of her father-in-law, and added that she deserved to be reimbursed as he was dependant on her family.

Justice Sandhawalia, however, rejected Monika’s petition, saying as per the Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940, only a female employee’s husband, who is residing with her, besides her legitimate children (including step and adopted) and her parents were dependent on her and for whose medical treatment she could claim reimbursement.

“In such circumstances, in the absence of any such provision, the contention that father-in-law would be part of the family cannot be accepted,” the court said, also rejecting Monika’s argument of father-in-law being a part of the expanded family.

The court also observed that the “expanded family” did not have a limit.