Medical Reimbursement Cannot Be Denied to Government Employees Merely Because Dependent Parents Receive Old-Age Pension or Exceed ₹3,500 Income Ceiling; Dependency Includes Physical Care, Women Employees Can Claim for Parents-in-Law: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 24 September 2026

Citation: CWP No. 25295 of 2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that medical reimbursement claims of government employees cannot be rejected mechanically by applying the ₹3,500 monthly income ceiling prescribed under Haryana Government instructions dated 14 December 2007, when such restrictions defeat the rights available under the Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940.

The Court held that the expression “wholly dependent” is not confined to financial dependence but also encompasses physical dependence, particularly where aged parents suffering from illness require care and supervision. A nominal old-age social security pension of ₹3,000 per month cannot, by itself, disentitle a parent from being treated as dependent.

The Court further held that women government employees are entitled, in accordance with the applicable medical reimbursement policy, to opt for reimbursement concerning their parents or parents-in-law. Executive instructions cannot override statutory entitlements, and the State cannot adopt an unduly restrictive interpretation of medical welfare provisions contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution.

Summary: The High Court decided ten connected writ petitions challenging the rejection of medical reimbursement claims of Haryana Government employees concerning treatment of their dependent parents and parents-in-law.

In the lead petition, a JBT teacher sought reimbursement of ₹3,72,502 incurred on the treatment of his 70-year-old mother at a government-approved hospital. The State rejected the claim because the assessed family income exceeded the prescribed dependency ceiling of ₹3,500 per month. Similar objections arose in the connected petitions concerning receipt of old-age pension, separate Family IDs and eligibility of parents-in-law.

Examining the Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940, the Court observed that the statutory framework recognised wholly dependent parents without prescribing a rigid monetary ceiling. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.P. Ojha, (1998) 2 SCC 554, it reiterated that dependency must be assessed with reference to financial circumstances as well as physical care and medical needs.

The Court particularly noted the Haryana Health Department’s clarification dated 3 February 2025 that the ₹3,000 old-age allowance was a welfare payment and should not be counted as income. It held that the State could not grant a social security benefit and simultaneously use its receipt to deny another welfare entitlement.

The Court also rejected reliance on assessed family income of ₹1.40 lakh to ₹1.80 lakh as a sufficient basis to negate dependency in the circumstances. Regarding female employees, it recognised that the applicable policy expressly permitted them to opt for medical reimbursement for either their parents or parents-in-law.

Emphasising the right to health under Article 21, the Court held that administrative income restrictions could not be applied so rigidly as to defeat legitimate medical reimbursement claims.

Decision: The High Court allowed all writ petitions, quashed the impugned rejection orders and directed the competent authorities to process, sanction and release the admissible medical reimbursement amounts within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.