Father not 'family' for married govt staff, says court

CHENNAI: Father of a married government employee is not covered by the term family' and hence not eligible to get his medical expenses reimbursed by the government, the Madras high court has said.
Justice K Chandru, dismissing the writ petition of N Ilavarasu, relied on a Supreme Court ruling that the provision of facilities cannot be unlimited.
Ilavarasu moved the court seeking a direction to the government to reimburse the medical expenses incurred when his father underwent a surgery for removal of a tumour.
The government rejected his application in May 2000. Assailing the rejection, Ilavarasu said the fundamental right to equality would be denied if the expenses of father alone are not reimbursed. Even a married son is bound to protect his dependant parents, he said.
The government, however, cited a March 1993 rule saying family' for the purpose of this scheme will not cover the father. It said it cannot afford to spend the health fund on all categories of persons. In case of a married government servant, the scheme provides protection only for wife and children and once the term family' is defined, the petitioner cannot expand the definition to include his father, it said.
Though Ilavarasu's father's ailment is covered under the scheme and the hospital, where he underwent surgery, is also covered, unless and until his father is covered by the definition of the term family', he cannot seek to expand the scope of the scheme, the government said.
Justice Chandru, citing the apex court judgment that no state of any country could have unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects, said the state government was well within its powers to pass such an order. "It cannot be said that the stand of the state was either arbitrary or violative of fundamental right to equality. The classification made by the state is well within its powers. Hence, there is no case made out," he said and dismissed the writ petition.
(EOM)