It would also be appropriate to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment in the matter of State of M.P. and ors vs. M.P. Ojha and anr. - (1982) 2 SCC 554, which read thus:
"13. The expression "wholly dependent" is not a term of art. It has to be given its due meaning with reference to the Rules in which it appears. We need not make any attempt to define the expression "wholly dependent" to be applicable to all cases in all circumstances. We also need not look into other provisions of law where such expression is defined. That would likely to lead to results which the relevant rules would not have contemplated. The expression "wholly dependent"has to be understood in the context in which it is used keeping in view the object of the particular rules where it is contained. We cannot curtail the meaning of "wholly dependent" by reading into this the definition as given in SR 8 [sic SR 2(8)] which has been reproduced above. Further, the expression "wholly dependent" as appearing in the definition of family as given in Medical Rules cannot be confined to mere financial dependence. Ordinarily dependence means financial dependence but for a member of family it would mean other support, maybe physical, as well. To be "wholly dependent" would therefore include both financial and physical dependence. If support required is physical and a member of the family is otherwise financially sound he may not necessarily be wholly dependent. Here the father was 70 years of age and was sick and it could not be said that he was not wholly dependent on his son. Son has to look after him in his old age. Even otherwise by getting a pension of Rs.414 per month which by any standard is a paltry amount it could not be said that the father was not "wholly dependent" on his son. That the father had a separate capacity of being a retired Government servant is immaterial if his case falls within the Medical Rules being a member of the family of his son and wholly dependent on him. A flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying the Rules in a case like the present one. There is no dispute that the son took his father to Bombay for treatment for his serious ailment after getting due permission from the competent authority. It was submitted before us that the father being a retired government servant could himself get sanction for treatment outside the State as a special case from the competent authority. It is not necessary for us to look into this aspect of the matter as we are satisfied that under the relevant Medical Rules, the father was member of the family of his son and was wholly dependent on him and the 2nd respondent was thus fully entitled to reimbursement for the expenses incurred on the treatment of his father and other travelling expenses."
Bombay High Court
Nazera Sadique Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 February, 2019
Bench: R.M. Borde
CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 13th FEBRUARY 2019.
