IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.KUMAE."''* ? T'
AND
WRIT PETITION No.324;_1;_; 01'?' 2010 (sfcgrl. 5;
BETWEEN:
1.
Comptroiler 82 Audi1.of-- _ ' iv
General oflnclia, V 1 _
No.9, Dean Dayal [Jp;1dh'a3:?;3y"M21rcé, 1 E V' " T
NEW DELI-II;"--9 111§_'0_1:24.: " E
The P'1:i11a:#ipa1 1":<§'c:.rgusj:.t'a3;ii'--- '
General v[C&(3I',.)_, " V. "-~ .__ " " 2
O/011116 I-fifirlcyipal . " '
Accountani C:e'ne?ral{-
E . '_ BAFIGQLQRE :%~56§,,0o1.
' :S€ni0r._VA1.1'dTE'f Qfficer Bills [C&CA),
A 0,/«:)'the~.If?i~ixiC.ipal A(:coum;ar1t
'G_M1_'¢_3.7'1'.e Sri..Vis}'1wa1latmm K.II).,
' ~. AAg§,c<'i a.bo'ui:. 1&3 Years,
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent: ~«~ applicagnt
before the ‘.l’r”£buna1 joined the service on ‘I—Iis
dependant father was hosp’ita]ise(:1 on aeco1mt4″”o’t’ attor:k’»_
on 05.06.2008. He expired on 0
respondent: made a claim or: _”21.v0’Z._;2008
reimbursement. It was by0″ on
04.12.2008 firstly on ‘ the'” ‘respondent’s
mother was also depending on
the mother the ground that
the respon_deh.t CGHS on 14.07.2008,
though — ezohlieation on 10.07.2008.
Therefore, he’ was» C’or1st:’ra_ii1Ved to approach the Tribunal
vchallerléging. the Vrejeetiorr.
3″; _ ‘I_’he ‘:’Frji_’b1.i’13_al:..():1 consideration of the relevant rules and
0 after the aforesaid objections, has held that the
~././0:»-V’8t:’)p1iCaflf.SV__AiI1()th€I’ was d.rawin§__{ a salary of Rs.5,500/– per
‘*r1j.or_1t}.1_ _xfikitt1 D.A. aci;m1’ssit31e. However, the applicant is the
0″‘or1_f§y._r:son to his parents and his mother was earning more
EV’
/”‘
than Rs.5,500/– she was not dependent on the ap.plicant.
The income of the entire family is not to
consideration. Therefore, it held relying on a
Apex Court in t.he case of “E/sf’.
D.P.Singh reported in 2010(2) the
applicant, who had no income he aspdependent
family member of the ‘fherefore on
the ground that his his request for
reimbursement not have been
rejected. In of CGHS is
concerned, that the applicant —
respondent’ litheéhenefit the moment he became
an employee. V date he filed an application for
_v.memlb–ership of CGHS and on what date the card is
issuedis It is only a formality. Therefore,
‘Tribunal.’ “aside the order of rejection and directed the
.yyAV”;i.etif.ion.ersf’ to reimburse the medical expenses strictly in
K _ ‘accordance with law.
4. In this writ petition, learned counsel appearing –for the
petitioners reiterated the aforesaid grounds. see
any substance in either of them. The
expenses of a Government employee’_hv’est«_g ghek.
b€C3II1€ a Government employee:
a membership are only be Right
flows not from the élllploynleflt
SnnfladywvhentheiafimirfitheappheanrhasIefimmiandlnul
no source of on the applicant a
respondent. mother is also employed
would on the mother, thus denying
the benefitof that View of the matter, we do
not see jiistificatienyto interfere with the well considered order
“of ‘ merit. Dismissed.
Sd/-‘
JUDGE;
Sih
JUDGE