# Brijesh Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 948
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-31
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 10537 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijesh-bahadur-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50648
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Government Servants
(Medical
Attendance)
Rules,
2011
-
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 - Rule
37(2) - Medical Reimbursement - Retired
Employee
of
Development
Authority
-
Centralised Services - Right to Reimbursement
Not Dependent on Government Ratification of
Board Resolution - Rule 37(2) -Centralised
Service Rules, 1985 - Attracted - Entitlement
Recognized
Held: A retired Junior Engineer of the Prayagraj
Development Authority (PDA) was denied
reimbursement for medical treatment expenses
of his wife during the Covid-19 pandemic on the
ground that the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011, though adopted by the PDA Board, had
not been ratified by the St. Government. The
Court held that even if such adoption was not
treated as a regulation under Section 56 of the
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973, the benefit of the Medical Attendance
Rules, 2011 would still be available to the
petitioner under Rule 37(2) of the U.P.
Development Authorities Centralised Services
Rules, 1985. This rule mandates that in matters
not covered by those Rules, members of the
centralised service (including retirees) are to be
governed
by
rules
applicable
to
U.P.
Government
servants.
Since
medical
reimbursement was not provided under the
1985 Rules or the Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011, the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011
automatically applied. The impugned order
rejecting the reimbursement was quashed.
Mandamus issued to the Vice-Chairman and
Secretary, PDA, to verify and reimburse the
medical bill submitted by the petitioner within
one month of receipt of the order.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Key Cases Cited:

## Text

948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under
the
Government
Order
dated
09.05.1997, would also remain open.

23. This petition is accordingly,
dismissed at this stage subject to aforesaid
liberty.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 948
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 10537 of 2023

Brijesh Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satyendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pawan Kumar Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Government Servants
(Medical
Attendance)
Rules,
2011
-
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 - Rule
37(2) - Medical Reimbursement - Retired
Employee
of
Development
Authority
-
Centralised Services - Right to Reimbursement
Not Dependent on Government Ratification of
Board Resolution - Rule 37(2) -Centralised
Service Rules, 1985 - Attracted - Entitlement
Recognized
Held: A retired Junior Engineer of the Prayagraj
Development Authority (PDA) was denied
reimbursement for medical treatment expenses
of his wife during the Covid-19 pandemic on the
ground that the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011, though adopted by the PDA Board, had
not been ratified by the St. Government. The
Court held that even if such adoption was not
treated as a regulation under Section 56 of the
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973, the benefit of the Medical Attendance
Rules, 2011 would still be available to the
petitioner under Rule 37(2) of the U.P.
Development Authorities Centralised Services
Rules, 1985. This rule mandates that in matters
not covered by those Rules, members of the
centralised service (including retirees) are to be
governed
by
rules
applicable
to
U.P.
Government
servants.
Since
medical
reimbursement was not provided under the
1985 Rules or the Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011, the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011
automatically applied. The impugned order
rejecting the reimbursement was quashed.
Mandamus issued to the Vice-Chairman and
Secretary, PDA, to verify and reimburse the
medical bill submitted by the petitioner within
one month of receipt of the order.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Key Cases Cited:

1. Praveen Kumar Agarwal Vs St. of U.P., (2011)
ILR 1 All 21

2. Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P.,
2023:AHC-LKO:32771

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J.Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
an order passed by the Secretary, Prayagraj
Development Authority, Prayagraj dated
February the 4th, 2023, rejecting the
petitioner's claim for reimbursement of
medical expenses incurred on his wife's
treatment.

2. The petitioner is a retired Junior
Engineer, who was in the employ of the
erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority,
Allahabad. He retired on 31.07.2017 upon
attaining the age of superannuation. The
Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad
has since been re-named as the Prayagraj
Development Authority, Prayagraj, and the
petitioner, therefore, is a retired employee of
the last named Authority. The Prayagraj
Development Authority, Prayagraj shall
hereinafter be referred to as 'the PDA'.
8 All. Brijesh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
949

3. The petitioner has disclosed in
minute
detail
facts
relating
to
his
recruitment in the PDA, his regularization
in service, the amendments made to rules
affecting his service at different points of
time, but all that is unnecessary for the
purpose of the issue that arises in this
petition. What is of significance is that
while the petitioner was in service of the
PDA, the Under Secretary, Department of
Planning and Development, Government of
U.P., addressed a memo dated 17.04.2012
to
the
Vice-Chairmen
of
all
the
Development Authorities, established under
the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act
of 1973'), conveying the Government's
inclination to extend the provisions of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servants
(Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011 (for
short, 'the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011') to employees of the Development
Authorities. All the Vice-Chairmen of
Development Authorities across the State
were required to give their consent,
indicating that the Development Authority
is capable and willing to bear the financial
burden of adopting the Medical Attendance
Rules, 2011 for employees of their
respective Development Authorities. This
was true of the PDA also, the ViceChairman whereof had to consent in order
that the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011
would become available to the employees.
A reminder on March the 5th, 2013 was
addressed
by
the
Under
Secretary,
Government of U.P. to the Vice-Chairmen
of Development Authorities across the
State, asking them to send their consent for
adoption of the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011.

4. The PDA, in response to the
Memoranda
dated
17.04.2012
and
05.03.2013, last mentioned, considered the
matter in their 107th Board Meeting held
on 06.04.2013. The proposal to apply the
Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 to the
PDA was discussed and unanimously
accepted by the Board of the PDA vide
Resolution No.1601 dated 06.04.2013. The
said resolution that dealt with Proposal
No.7 of the day, is on record. The ViceChairman of the PDA vide memo dated
24th October, 2013 duly informed the
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Planning, Government of U.P. that the
Board of the PDA have unanimously
resolved
and
adopted
the
Medical
Attendance Rules, 2011 for the benefit of
their employees in their meeting held on
06.04.2013. The petitioner says that the
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Planning has not passed any orders,
accepting or approving the resolution of the
PDA dated 06.04.2013. Rule 2 of the
Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 provides
for the application of the Rules and reads:

"2. Application-They shall apply to-

(a) All Government Servants while
they are on duty, or on leave or under
suspension and their family.

(b) Retired Government Servants
and to their family and in case of deceased
Government Servants such members of
their family as are eligible for family
pension."

5. The petitioner says that after
adoption of the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011 by the PDA vide resolution dated
06.04.2013, all provisions of the said Rules
would be applicable and enure to the
benefit of the employees as well as retired
employees and their dependent family
members.

6. During the second wave of the
CoVid-19 pandemic, the petitioner's wife,
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Smt. Kusum Singh was diagnosed positive
for Covid-19 on 15.04.2021. Four days
later, on 19th April, 2021, her blood oxygen
saturation sank to a dangerous level. On
medical advice, she had to be admitted to a
dedicated Covid Hospital, to wit, Vineeta
Hospital, Phaphamau, Prayagraj. Smt.
Kusum Singh was treated and finally
discharged on the 6th of May, 2021. The
medical bill involved in the treatment ran
into a figure of Rs.2,75,000/-. The
petitioner moved an application on 23rd
July, 2021 along with a summary of the
bill, the medical bill, the discharge
summary and the follow up prescriptions
relating to his wife for her CoVid-19
treatment before the Chairman of the PDA
with a request for reimbursement of the
medical bills. No action on the said
application was taken by the ViceChairman of the PDA. The petitioner then
moved a representation dated 16th October,
2022 before the Chairman, PDA, carrying
the same request. The Chairman marked
and
forwarded
the
petitioner's
representation to the PDA for appropriate
action. The Secretary, PDA by the order
impugned dated 04.02.2023 rejected the
petitioner's application for reimbursement
of expenses incurred in the medical
treatment aforesaid on the ground that
though the PDA had unanimously adopted
the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 for
their employees in the meeting dated
06.04.2013, but so long as the said Rules
were not extended by a decision of the
Government to the PDA, no reimbursement
could be granted. The said order was
passed
on
4th
February,
2023
and
impugned in this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed
by Mr. Arun Kumar on behalf of
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The short case
taken there is that despite the PDA adopting
the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 and
accepting the financial burden therefor, the
State Government have not ratified the
aforesaid decision, making the Rules
aforesaid available for the benefit of the
PDA employees. It is the PDA's case that in
the absence of ratification by the State
Government of the PDA Board's resolution
and
notifying
the
aforesaid
Medical
Attendance Rules for the employees of the
PDA, the same cannot be enforced. It is
pleaded on behalf of the PDA that under
Section 56 of the Act of 1973, the
Development Authority, with previous
approval of the State Government, can
make regulations, not inconsistent with the
Act and the Rules for administration of the
Authority. It is emphasized that sub-Section
(2)(c) of Section 56 further contemplates
that regulations framed under sub-Section
(1) may relate to salaries, allowance and
conditions of service of the Secretary, Chief
Accounts Officer and other officers and
employees. In view of the said provisions,
adoption of the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011 by the Board of the PDA would not
extend the benefit of the Rules to the PDA
employees.

8. Heard Mr. Satyendra Singh, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh
Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State and Mr.
Arun Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has advanced two submissions in criticism
of the impugned order dated 04.02.2023.
He submits in the first place that the
Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 come to
life upon their adoption by the PDA Board
ipso facto. There is no requirement for the
Board's resolution to be ratified or accepted
8 All. Brijesh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
951
in any manner by the State Government.
He has drawn the Court's attention to the
provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1973
to submit that the said provision refers to
the power of a Development Authority to
make
regulations.
In
the
event,
a
Development Authority, like the PDA, wish
to make regulations, as envisaged under
Section 56 of the Act of 1973, previous
approval of the State Government, before
exercise of the power, is necessary. Mr.
Satyendra Singh submits that in the present
case, the power to make regulations by the
PDA has not been invoked at all while
accepting the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011,
already
framed
by
the
State
Government for government servants.

10. The other submission, on the foot
of which learned Counsel for the petitioner
assails the impugned order, is that after
notification
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Development
Authorities
Centralised
Services Rules, 1985 (for short, 'the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985'), the
service conditions as well as retirement
benefits
of
employees/
ex-emplyees,
belonging to the centralised services of
Development Authorities, are governed by
the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 and
also by the Uttar Pradesh Development
Authorities
Centralized
Services
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011 (for short,
'the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011'). The
learned Counsel for the petitioner has
called attention to Rule 37 of the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985, which
reads:

"37. Regulation of other matters-

(1) If any dispute or difficulty arises
regarding interpretation of any of the
provisions of these rules, the same shall be
referred to the Government whose decision
shall be final.

(2) In regard to the matters not
covered by these rules or by special orders,
the members of service shall be governed
by the rules, regulations and orders
applicable generally to U.P. Government
servants serving in connection with the
affairs of the State.

(3) Matters not covered by sub-rules
(1) and (2) above shall be governed by such
orders as the Government may deem proper
to issue."

(emphasis by Court)

11. The submission of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner is that since the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 do not
provide for medical benefits, sub-Rule (2)
of Rule 37 of the said Rules would attract
application of rules, regulations and orders
applicable generally to U.P. Government
Servants serving in connection with the
affairs of the State. The submission on this
score, therefore, is that the Medical
Attendance Rules, 2011 would apply by
virtue of Rule 37(2) of the Centralised
Service Rules, 1985, even if the PDA were
not to adopt by a resolution of the Board,
the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011
applicable to U.P. Government servants.

12. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State and Mr.
Arun
Kumar,
learned
Counsel
for
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, have supported
the impugned order.

13. This Court has considered the
submissions advanced by both parties.

14. It would be gainful to refer to
certain provisions of the Act of 1973 and
some of the statutory Rules, governing the
service conditions of employees of the
Development Authorities, including the
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
PDA. Section 4 of the Act of 1973
provides:

"Section
4.
The
Development
Authority

(1) The State Government may, by
notification in the Gazette, constitute for
the purposes of this Act, an Authority to be
called the Development Authority for any
development area.

(2) The Authority shall be a body
corporate, by the name given to it in the
said
notification,
having
perpetual
succession and a common seal with power
to acquire, hold and dispose of property,
both movable and immovable and to
contract and shall by the said name sue and
be sued.

(3) The Authority in respect of a
development area which includes the whole
or any part of a city as defined in the Uttar
Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959,
shall consist of the following members,
namely-

(a) a Chairman to be appointed by the
State Government:

(b) a Vice-Chairman to be appointed
by the State Government:

(c)
the
Secretary
to
the
State
Government, incharge of the Department in
which, for the time being, the business
relating to the Development Authorities is
transferred, ex-officio;

(d)
the
Secretary
to
the
State
Government, incharge of the Department of
Finance, ex-officio.

(e) the Chief Town and Country
Planner, Uttar Pradesh, ex-officio;

(f) the Managing Director of the Jal
Nigam established under the Uttar Pradesh
Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, exofficio;

(g) the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, exofficio;

(h) the District Magistrate of every
district any part of which is included in the
development area, ex-officio;

(i) four members to be elected by
Sabhasads of the, Nagar Mahapalika for the
said city from amongst themselves:

Provided that any such member shall
cease to hold office as such as soon as he
ceases to be Sabhasad of the Municipal
Corporation:

(j) such other members not exceeding
three as may be nominated by the State
Government.

(4) The appointment of the ViceChairman shall be whole time.

(5) The Vice-Chairman shall be
entitled to receive from the funds of the
Authority such salaries and allowance and
be governed by such conditions of service
as may be determined by general or special
order of the State Government in this
behalf.

(6) A member referred to in clause (c),
clause (d), clause (e) or clause (f) of subsection (3) may instead of attending a
meeting of the Authority himself depute an
officer, not below the rank of Deputy
Secretary in the department, in the case of a
member referred to in clause (c) or clause
(d) and below the rank of Town Planner in
the case of a member referred to in clause
(e)
and
not
below
the
rank
of
Superintending Engineer in the case of a
member referred to in clause (f) to attend
the meeting. The officer so deputed shall
have the right to take part in the
proceedings of the meeting and shall also
have the right to vote.

(7) The Authority in respect of a
development area other than that mentioned
in Sub-section (3) shall consist of a
Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and not less
than five and not more than eleven such
other members, including at least one
member from the Municipal Boards and
8 All. Brijesh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
953
Notified Area Committees having each
jurisdiction in the development area, who
shall hold office for such period and on
such terms and conditions, as may be
determined by general or special order of
the State Government in this behalf:

Provided that the Vice-Chairman or a
member other than an ex-officio member of
the Authority may at any time by writing
under his hand addressed to the State
Government resign his office and on such
resignation being accepted shall be deemed
to have vacated his office.

(8) No act or proceedings of the
Authority shall be invalid by reason of the
existence of any vacancy in, or defect in the
constitution of the Authority."

15. Section 5 of the Act of 1973 may
also be quoted with profit:

"Section 5. Staff of the Authority

(1) The
State
Government
may
appoint two suitable persons respectively as
the Secretary and the Chief Accounts
Officer of the Authority who shall exercise
such powers and perform such duties as
may be prescribed by regulations or
delegated to them by the Authority or its
Vice-Chairman.

(2) Subject to such control and
restrictions as may be determined by
general or special order of the State
Government, the Authority may appoint
such
number
of
other
officers
and
employees as may be necessary for the
efficient performance of its functions and
may determine their designations and
grades.

(3) The Secretary, the Chief Accounts
Officer and other Officers and employees
of the Authority shall be entitled to receive
from the funds of the Authority such
salaries and allowances and shall be
governed by such salaries and allowances
and shall be governed by other conditions
of service as may be determined by
regulations made in that behalf."

16. Section 5A of the Act of 1973 was
brought in by amendment vide U.P. Act
No.21 of 1985, and provides for the
creation of centralised services in the
Development Authorities. Section 5-A
provides as follows:

"5-A.
Creation
of
Centralised
Services.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in Section 5 or in any
other law for the time being in force, the
State Government may at any time, by
notification,
create
one
or
more
'Development
Authorities
Centralised
Services' for such posts, other than the
posts mentioned in Sub-section (1) of
Section 59, as the State Government may
deem fit, common to all the Development
Authorities and may prescribe the manner
and conditions of recruitment to, and the
terms, and conditions of service of persons
appointed to. such service.

(2) Upon creation of a Development
Authorities Centralised Service, a person
serving on the posts included in such
service immediately before such creation;
not being a person governed by the U.P.
Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966,
or serving on deputation, shall, unless he
opts otherwise, be absorbed in such
service-

(a) finally, if he was already confirmed
in his post, and

(b) provisionally, if he was holding
temporary or officiating appointment.

(3) A person referred to in Sub-section
(2) may, within three months from the
creation of such Development Authorities
Centralised Service communicate to the
Government in the Housing Department,
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his option not to be absorbed in such
Centralised Service, failing which he shall
be deemed to have opted for final or
provisional, as the case may be, absorption
in such Centralised Service.

(4) Suitability of a person absorbed
provisionally, for final absorption in a
Development
Authorities
Centralised
Service, shall be examined in the manner
prescribed and if found suitable he shall be
absorbed finally.

(5) The services of an employee who
opts against absorption or who is not found
suitable for final absorption, shall stand
determined and he shall, without prejudice
to his claim to any leave, pension,
provident fund or gratuity which he would
have been entitled to be, entitled to receive
as compensation from the Development
Authority concerned, an amount equal to-

(a) three months' salary if he was a
permanent employee:

(b) one month's salary, if he was a
'temporary employee.

Explanation.- For the purposes of
this sub-section, the term 'salary' includes
dearness allowance, personal pay and
special pay, if any.

(6) It shall be, lawful for the State
Government or any officer authorised by it
in this behalf, to transfer any person
holding any post in a Development
.Authorities Centralised Service from one
Development Authority to another."

17. It is also important to refer to
Section 20 of the Act of 1973, which occurs
in Chapter VII, dealing with finance,
accounts and audit. Section 20 aforesaid is
quoted below:

"Section 20. Fund of the Authority

(1) The Authority shall have and
maintain its own fund to which shall be
credited-

(a) all moneys received by the
Authority from the State Government by
way
of
grants,
loans,
advances
or
otherwise;

(b) all moneys borrowed by the
Authority from sources other than the State
Government by way of loans or debentures;

(c) all fees tolls and charges received
by the Authority under this Act;

(d) all moneys received by the
Authority from the disposal of lands,
buildings and other properties, movable
and immovable; and

(e) all moneys received by the
Authority by way of rents and profits or in
any other manner or from any other source.

(2) The fund shall be applied towards
meeting the expenses incurred by Authority
in the administration of this Act and for no
other purposes.

(3) Subject to any directions of the
State Government, the Authority may keep
in current account of any Scheduled Bank
such sum of money out of its fund as it may
think necessary for meeting its expected
current requirements and invest any surplus
money in such manner as it thinks fit.

(4) The State Government may, after
due appropriation made by Legislature by
law in that behalf, make such grants
advances and loans to the Authority as that
Government may deem necessary for the
performance of the functions of the
Authority under this Act and all grants,
loans and advances made shall be on such
terms
and
condition's
as
the
State
Government may determine.

(5) The Authority may borrow money
by way of loans or debentures from such
sources (other than the State Government)
and on such terms and conditions as may
be approved by the State Government.

(6) The Authority shall maintain a
sinking fund for the repayment of moneys
borrowed under sub-section (5), and shall
8 All. Brijesh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
955
pay every year into the sinking fund such
sum as may be sufficient for repayment
within the period fixed of all moneys so
borrowed.

(7) The sinking fund or any part
thereof shall be applied in, or towards, the
discharge of the loan for which such fund
was created, and until such loan is wholly
discharged it shall not be applied for any
other purpose."

18. After introduction of Section 5-A,
amending the Act of 1973, the State
Government
(vide
notification
dated
25.06.1985)
notified
the
Centralised
Service Rules, 1985 and the Retirement
Benefit Rules, 2011, already introduced and
referred to hereinbefore.

19. So far as the first contention of the
petitioner is concerned, it is true that the
power to make regulations vested in the
PDA under Section 56 of the Act of 1973,
can be exercised with previous approval of
the State Government and with the
limitation that the regulations made are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
and the Rules made thereunder. Clause (c)
of sub-Section (2) of Section 56 speaks
about salaries, allowance and conditions of
service of the Secretary, Chief Accounts
Officer and other officers and employees.
But, the moot question is whether the PDA,
or for that matter any Authority established
under the Act of 1973, while acting by its
resolution to extend the benefit of any
existing Rules applicable to government
servants,
to
the
employees
of
the
Development Authority, does so in the
exercise of its power to make regulations
under Section 56. This Court does not think
so. The term 'Rules' has a definite
connotation under the Act of 1973 and the
power to make Rules is vested under
Section 55 of the Act of 1973 exclusively
in the State Government. If the PDA, or for
that matter, any Development Authority, by
virtue of Section 55 of the Act of 1973,
cannot make Rules, it cannot adopt Rules
framed by the State Government for
government servants for the benefit of its
employees, if one were to go strictly by the
connotation of the term 'Rules', occurring
in Section 55. There is hardly any
difference in making Rules or adopting
them, because the power to make Rules is
traceable to Section 55 of the Act of 1973.
That power is exercisable exclusively by
the
State
Government;
not
by
the
Development Authorities. The making of
Rules or adopting ones, already made by
the Government, is only a difference in the
mode of exercise of power; nothing else.

20. Notwithstanding the aforesaid
remarks, this Court does not wish to
pronounce on the said issue, inasmuch as
the controversy involved in the present
petition can be decided on the other issue
raised. Since the rights of parties can be
determined with reference to the other
issue, the question is left open to be
decided in a suitable matter.

21. The other alternate submission
canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is
founded
on
the
provisions
of
the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985. These
Rules have been framed by the State
Government, wherefor they have ample
authority by virtue of Section 55 read with
Section 5-A of the Act of 1973. Rule 37 of
the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 has
been referred to hereinabove and sub-Rule
(2) of Rule 37 provides that in matters not
covered by these Rules or special orders,
the members of the service, which means
the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities
Centralised Service, shall be governed by
Rules, Regulations and Orders applicable
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
generally to U.P. Government servants
serving in connection with affairs of the
State, almost to borrow the phraseology of
Rule 37(2).

22. The Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011 also framed in the exercise of power
under Section 55 of the Act of 1973 do not
provide anything relating to reimbursement
of medical expenses, or for that matter
anything to do with medical expenses at
all. The Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011
deal with pension, gratuity, including
death-cum-retirement
pension,
family
pension and its commutation. It is
perhaps for this reason that the State
Government required the Development
Authorities, including the PDA to adopt
the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011
framed by the State Government for
government servants. Admittedly, the
Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 provide
for reimbursement of medical expenses,
not only for a retired government servant,
but their family as well and such
members of a deceased government
servant's family, as are eligible for family
pension.

23. Now, assuming that the Board's
resolution,
adopting
the
Medical
Attendance Rules, 2011, does not qualify as
a Regulation under Section 56 of the Act of
1973 and by its own force, cannot be a
Rule under Section 55, because the rule
making power is not available with the
Development Authorities, but with the
State
Government
exclusively,
the
provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 make the
Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 applicable
to members of the centralised services as
defined under sub-Rule 1(vi) read with subRule 1(vii) of Rule 2 of the Centralised
Service Rules, 1985.

24. Now, the position that the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 take within
their fold not only conditions of service of
members, who are in harness, but also the
rights and privileges of retired members is
more than evident from the provisions of
sub-Rule (4) of Rule 34 of the said Rules.
Rule 34(4) provides:

"34. Age of retirement.-

(4) A retiring pension and/or other
retirement benefits, if any, shall be
available in accordance with and subject to
the provisions of the relevant rules
applicable to every officer or other
employee who retires or is required or
allowed to retire under this rule."

25. The aforesaid provisions make
available to a retired employee of the
centralised service a retiring pension and/
or other benefits, if these are available in
accordance with and subject to the
provisions of the relevant rules applicable
to an employee. After enactment of the
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, pension
and gratuity, including family pension are
provided for by the said Rules in all detail
as
to
entitlement,
computation,
commutation
of
pension
etc.
The
Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, however,
do not govern the subject of medical
reimbursement
or
provide
about
it.
Therefore, by virtue of sub-Rule (4) of
Rule 34 of the Centralised Service Rules,
1985 while entitlement to pension and
gratuity, including family pension would be
governed by the Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011,
the
entitlement
to
medical
reimbursement clearly follows on the
provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 by virtue
of which the Medical Attendance Rules,
2011 become applicable to retired members
of the centralised service, including their
8 All. Brijesh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
957
family. Since the Centralised Service Rules,
1985 does not define what the term 'family'
would imply in relation to a member of the
centralised service, the definition of 'family'
provided under the Medical Attendance
Rules, 2011 would apply.

26. It is particularly so, as already
said, that a reading of sub-Rule (4) of Rule
34 and sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 makes it
evident that the rights of retired members
of the centralised service and their family
with regard to their entitlement for medical
reimbursement, would be governed by the
Medical Attendance Rules, 2011. The
Medical Attendance Rules on their own
terms by virtue of Rule 2(b), quoted in this
judgment, apply to retired government
servants
and
to
their
families. The
provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 and the
Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 read in the
context of Rule 34(4) of the Centralised
Service Rules, 1985 form an integreted
scheme to advance the welfare of the
members of the centralised service and
their family. Therefore, the construction to
be placed upon them has to be one, which
advances the purpose rather than inhibiting
it by a pedantic constrict.

27. Much before the Retirement
Benefit Rules, 2011 were enacted, the
question about entitlement to pension of
members of centralised service under the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985 arose
before a Division Bench of this Court at
Lucknow in Praveen Kumar Agarwal
and others v. State of U.P. and others,
(2011) ILR 1 All 21. Though, their
Lordships found for the retired members of
the centralised service a right to receive
pension on a plain reading of Section 5-A
read with Section 24 of the Act of 1973, the
right was held traceable also to the
provisions of Rule 37(3) and Rule 34(4) of
the Centralised Service Rules, 1985 read
with the provisions contained in the
Financial Handbook and Civil Services
Regulations, entitling employees of the
State Government to pension. In Praveen
Kumar Agarwal (supra), it was held by
their Lordships of the Division Bench:

"40. There is one other aspect of the
matter. Rule 34 of the Rules, covers all the
employees of the Development Authorities
with regard to retiral pension and other
retiral benefits. Rule 37 categorically
provides that matter not covered under
Sub-Rule (1) and (2), shall be governed by
all such orders as the State Government
may deem proper. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 37
has been meant to fill up vacuum. Sub-rule
(2) specifically provides that matters not
covered by these Rules or by special
orders, the members of service shall be
governed by the Rules, Regulations and
Orders
applicable
generally,
to
U.P.
Government Servant serving in connection
with the affairs of the State.

41. The two Government orders dated
4.3.1983 and 17.3.1983 seem to have been
issued to clarify the position keeping in
view the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37.
Admittedly,
employees
of
State
Government are being paid pension in
pursuance of provisions contained in
Financial Handbook and Civil Services
Regulations.
Accordingly,
unless
the
separate provision is made, the petitioners
case shall be governed by Sub-rule (2) of
Rule 37 of 1985 rules."

28. Until time, that Praveen Kumar
Agarwal was decided, there were no
separate rules governing the entitlement to
retirement pension for members of the
centralised service, and, therefore, in the
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concluding remarks in Paragraph No.41 of
the report in Praveen Kumar Agarwal, it
was said that the petitioner's case shall be
governed by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37 of the
Centralised Service Rules, 1985. At that
time, by virtue of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37
aforesaid, the right to receive pension for
members of the centralised service would
be the same as those of State Government
employees serving in connection with
affairs of the State under the rules
applicable to them, be it the Financial
Handbook or the Civil Service Regulations.
Now, that position stands changed with the
framing of the Retirement Benefit Rules,
2011, which apply to a retired member of
the service by virtue of sub-Rule (4) of
Rule 34.

29. However, so far as medical
reimbursement is concerned, the position
would be the same as it was before their
Lordships in Praveen Kumar Agarwal
and the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule
37 of the Centralised Service Rules, 1985,
would ipso facto attract the provisions of
the Medical Attendance Rules, 2011 to
retired members of the centralised service
and their families for the purpose of
reimbursement of medical expenses.

30. More or less on similar line of
reasoning, a learned Single Judge of this
Court, when confronted with the issue in
Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P.
Thru. Principal Secretary, Department of
Housing and Urban Planning, Lko.,
2023:AHC-LKO:32771,
regarding
reimbursement of medical bills of a retired
employee of the centralised service, who had
claimed against the Banda Development
Authority, held:

"15. The second issue with regard to
payment of medical bills, it is clear from the
records that the benefits which were accorded
by the State Government to their employees
were adopted by the respondent no.2 on
18.11.2015, thus, there is no reason why the
respondents will not pay the medical
reimbursement allowance which have been
duly verified by the CMO and are pending
before the respondent no.1......"

31. This Court is, therefore, of opinion
that the petitioner has clearly established his
right to medical reimbursement of expenses
incurred in his wife's treatment, about which
there is no issue that she falls within the
definition of his 'family' under the Medical
Attendance Rules, 2011 applicable in the
case.

32. In the result, the petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned order dated
04.02.2023 passed by the Secretary, PDA
(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is hereby
quashed. Let a mandamus issue to the ViceChairman, PDA and the Secretary, PDA to
reimburse the medical bill submitted by the
petitioner for his wife's treatment on
23.07.2021, after verification in accordance
with law and the Rules applicable, within a
month of receipt of a copy of this order.

33. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 958
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 12283 of 2023

Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents