# Km. Rukaiya Bano v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 472
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2765 of 2026
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-rukaiya-bano-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54395
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner
as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.

 26. It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel, the principle
that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is
one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this
law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when he has to speak,
from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had"

29. Reiterating the law rendered in the earlier Judgments, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that once a candidate knowingly accepts, is stopped to deny the validity or the binding
effect on him, as principally the rule of estoppel, will also come into effect in such a scenario.

30. In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matters, I am of
the considered opinion that the applicant who appeared in the selection process, undisputedly,
without any protest, has no right to challenge the selection process, after he was declared
unsuccessful.

31. Consequently, this court finds no merit in the present writ petition.

32. Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

33. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 472
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 2765 of 2026

Km. Rukaiya Bano ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of rejection of Medical Reimbursement Claim on the ground that it was not submitted within a
period of 30 days as provided under GO dated 27.12.2016.
(2) Applicability of the Rule of Functional Interpretation, while interpreting the beneficial legislation.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Medical Reimbursement Claim - Period of 30 days to make the claim is
provided under GO dated 27.12.2016 - Claim was made beyond this period - The words 'as far
3 All. Km. Rukaiya Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
as possible' is used - Effect - Applicability of ratio laid down in May George's case felt into
consideration
Held : Not only the wordings of the provision but the intention does not appear that an application is required
to be rejected only on ground that it was preferred after the period of 30 days from commencement of
treatment. The intention clearly is that the authority concerned should be aware at the earliest with regard to
such treatment being administered to the employee. In such circumstances, the aforesaid provision indicated
in paragraph 11(Kha)is held to be merely directory in nature - The opposite parties were required to consider
the medical reimbursement claim of petitioner even if intimation has been made beyond the period of 30 days
from commencement of treatment. [Para 10 and 15]
(B) Interpretation of Statute - Beneficial legislation - Rule of Functional Interpretation -
Applicability
Held : Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a purpose-oriented approach - Literal
construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation has to be avoided. It is the Court's duty to discern the
intention of the legislature in making the law. Once such an intention is ascertained, the statute should
receive a purposeful or functional interpretation. [Para 12] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Mohinder Singh Gill & others vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851; May
George vs. Special Tahsildar and others, (2010) 13 SCC 98; K.H. Nazar vs. Mathew K. Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC
126; Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others, (2025) 2 SCC 787; Brahampal @ Sammay and another vs.
National Insurance Company, (2021) 6 SCC 512 - referred to.

List of Acts
Government Order dated 27.12.2016 - Pargraph no. 11(Kha).

List of Keywords
Medical Reimbursement Claim, Treatment, Intimation, As far as possible, Mandatory, Directory, Beneficial in
nature, Social security provision, Concept of reasonableness.

Case Arising From
Impugned order rejecting the Medical Reimbursement Claim made by the petitioner for expenses incurred in
treatment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ajay Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents : C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite parties.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a
direction to authority concerned to consider the aspect of medical reimbursement claim of
petitioner for expenses incurred in treatment.

3. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 09.03.2026, a copy
of which is taken on record and as per which petitioner's reimbursement claim was returned to her
since it had not been submitted within a period of 30 days as required under paragraph 11(Kha) of
Government order dated 27.12.2016.
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Written instructions provided to learned State counsel do not indicate any other aspect
for rejection of medical reimbursement claim of petitioner.

5. In view of fact that reasons for rejection of petitioner's claim has already been brought
on record by means of written instructions, petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission
stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit in terms of judgment rendered by the Supreme
Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & others v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
and others [AIR 1978 SC 851].

6. With regard to grounds for rejection, a perusal of Government order dated 27.12.2016,
particularly paragraph 11(Kha) (as amended) indicates the aspect that intimation with regard to
treatment being administered to an employee is required to be submitted before authority
concerned, as far as possible within a period of 30 days from the date of commencement of
treatment.

7. Relevant portion of the provision is as follows:-

 "11. ि कसी लाभाथीर् को राज्य के भीतर या बाहर तात्काि लक /आपात ि स्थथत में या यात्रा
पररकसी ि नजी ि ििकत्सालय या प्र ाि धकृ त संि वदाकृत ि ििकत्सालय में उपिार प्र ाप्त करने
कीअनुमन्यता होगी। अंत:रोगी का उपिार आपात ि स्थथत में सी.जी.एि.एस. योजना के अधीनसूिीबद्ध
ि नजी ि ििकत्सालयों में ि नःशुल्क होगा। प्र ाि धकृ त संि वदाकृत ि ििकत्सालयों में उपिार प्राप्त करने
के अलावा, ियद उपिार, राज्य के अन्य ि नजी ि ििकत्सालयों में कराया जाता है, तोउपिार का शुल्क ,
संजय गांधी स् नातकोत्तर आयुि वज्ञान संथथान में यथाप्रििलत दर पर िप्रतपूणीयय होगा और ियद रोग के
उपिार की दर संजय गांधी स् नातकोत्तर आयुि वज्ञान सथथानमें उपलब्ध नहीं है तो प्र ि तपूि त िअखल
भारतीय आयुि वज्ञान संथथान , नई ि दल्ली में प्र ििलत दरोंपर की जायेगी। ियद उपिार प्र ाि धकृ त
संि वदाकृत ि ििकत्सालयों से ि भन्न राज्य के बाहर ि नजीि ििकत्सालयों में कराया जाता है तो उपिार की
दर िअखल भारतीय आयुि वज्ञान संथथान , निईदल्ली में प्र ििलत दर पर प्र ि तपूणीयय होगी। प्र ाि धकृ त
संि ववाकृत ि ििकत्सालयों में उपिार होनेकी दशा में उपिार की दर सी०जी०एि०एस० की दरों पर प्र
ि तपूणीयय होगी परन्तु

(क) उपिारी ि ििकत्सक तात्काि लक /आपातकाि लक दशा प्र माि णत करे ।
(ख) रोगी या उसके सम्बन्धी द्व ारा कायालयाध्यक्ष को यथासंभव शीघ्र ि कन्तु उपिार प्र ारम्भ
होने के ि दनांक से तीस ि दनों के भीतर सुि ित कर ि दया जायेगा।
(ग) आपात ि स्थथत की दशा में एअर एम्बुलेन्स पर होने वाला व्य य भी प्र ि तपूि त हेतु
अनुमन्यहोगा।"
 8. From a bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is evident that the said aspect is not
mandatory in nature and is merely directory since it includes the words 'यथासंभव' i.e. as far as
possible.

9. The aspect as to whether such a condition can be held to be mandatory or merely
directory would require examination in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
3 All. Km. Rukaiya Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475
in May George v. Special Tahsildar and others, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 98, which is as
follows:-

 "25. The law on this issue can be summarized to the effect that in order to declare a
provision mandatory, the test to be applied is as to whether non-compliance with the provision
could render the entire proceedings invalid or not. Whether the provision is mandatory or
directory, depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language for which the intent
is clothed. The issue is to be examined having regard to the context, subject-matter and object of
the statutory provisions in question. The Court may find out as to what would be the consequence
which would flow from construing it in one way or the other and as to whether the statute provides
for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions and as to whether the non-compliance
is visited by small penalty or serious consequence would flow therefrom and as to whether a
particular interpretation would defeat or frustrate the legislation and if the provision is mandatory,
the act done in breach thereof will be invalid."

10. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is
evident that not only the wordings of the provision but the intention does not appear that an
application is required to be rejected only on ground that it was preferred after the period of 30
days from commencement of treatment. The intention clearly is that the authority concerned should
be aware at the earliest with regard to such treatment being administered to the employee. In such
circumstances, the aforesaid provision indicated in paragraph 11(Kha)is held to be merely directory
in nature.

11. The discussion can be examined from another aspect as well to the effect that the
provisions are clearly beneficial in nature in order to reimburse an employee for expenses incurred
due to medical treatment. The provision therefore imparts certain benefits to the employees and is
in nature of a social security provision, which can only be treated to be beneficial in nature.

12. The nature of interpretation of any such beneficial provision has been enunciated by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob reported in (2020) 14 SCC 126,
which has been followed in the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit v.
Sunil Sharan Dixit and others, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787 in the following manner:-

 "9. This Court in K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob [K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob,
(2020) 14 SCC 126] reiterated the above expositions and stated that : (SCC pp. 135-36, paras 11
& 13)

 "11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a purpose-oriented
approach. [Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341] The Act
should receive a liberal construction to promote its objects. [Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v.
ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573 and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] Also, literal construction of the provisions of
a beneficial legislation has to be avoided. It is the Court's duty to discern the intention of the
legislature in making the law. Once such an intention is ascertained, the statute should receive a
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purposeful or functional interpretation. [Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2
SCC 614 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 335]

 ***

 13. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the statute was designed to
remedy should first be identified, and then a construction that suppresses the problem and
advances the remedy should be adopted. [Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia,
(2015) 10 SCC 161 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 55] It is settled law that exemption clauses in beneficial
or social welfare legislations should be given strict construction. [Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai
Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] It was observed in Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai
Shantram Kowshik [Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] that
the exclusionary provisions in a beneficial legislation should be construed strictly so as to give a
wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its evasion on deceptive
grounds. Similarly, in Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land
Council [Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council, 2008
HCA 48 : (2008) 237 CLR 285] , Kirby, J. held that the principle of providing purposive
construction to beneficial legislations mandates that exceptions in such legislations should be
construed narrowly."

13. The said aspect has also been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Brahampal
@ Sammay and another v. National Insurance Company, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 512 in the
following manner:-

 "20. Therefore, the aforesaid provision being a beneficial legislation, must be given
liberal interpretation to serve its object. Keeping in view the substantive rights of the parties, undue
emphasis should not be given to technicalities......."

14. In view of discussions made herein above and the beneficial nature of the provision,
which has to be interpreted with the concept of reasonableness in order to give effect to such
beneficial provisions, the opposite parties have erred in treating the period of 30 days as indicated
in paragraph 11 to be mandatory.

15. In view of such an aspect clearly indicated in the Government Order, the opposite
parties were required to consider the medical reimbursement claim of petitioner even if intimation
has been made beyond the period of 30 days from commencement of treatment and in the
considered opinion of this Court, the opposite parties have erred in rejecting the claim only on a
ground, which is not mandatory in nature.

16. In view of aforesaid, opposite party no.5 i.e. District Commandant, Home Guards,
Raebareli U.P. or any other competent authority is directed to re-consider petitioner's medical
reimbursement claim expeditiously. For the said purpose, verification of medical bills of petitioner
shall be conducted expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. In case the medical bills are verified, actual payment thereof shall be ensured
within a period of two weeks thereafter.
3 All. Prashant Rao Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
477
17. With aforesaid direction(s), the petition stands allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 477
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 6977 of 2023

Prashant Rao ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of the order rejecting claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that spouse of
deceased (petitioner's mother) is an earning member as she is receiving the pension.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Compassionate appointment - Petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground
that his mother was receiving pension - Validity challenged - Clause 10.1 of Scheme, 2014
provide for rejection of such claim, if spouse is working and earning - Petitioner's mother was
treated as 'working and earning' member of the family - Validity challenged - Interpretation of
the words 'working and earning' felt into consideration
Held : The word 'earning' connotes as to get something in the present, means if services renders praesenti,
obtains some return in 'praesenti'. The pension is not received as a bounty, but as a privilege, therefore, the
services which has already been rendered in the past, cannot be termed as earning, therefore, a pensioner
cannot be treated as an earning person - The word 'earning' used under the provision of 'scheme 2014', for
compassionate appointment, does not cover the 'pension' received by a retired employee - Spouse of the
deceased employee i.e. mother of the petitioner is not, working employee, but has been retired, therefore,
the retired employee, only because of he/she gets the 'pension', per month, would not be treated/termed as
'working employee' - Quoting the provisions of clause 10.1 of the scheme 2014, the status of spouse of the
deceased i.e. mother of the petitioner, has erroneously been treated as 'working and earning' member of the
family.' [Para 17, 19, 20 and 23] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (2005) 10 SCC 289; State Bank of
India and Others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571; Shaukat Husain Beg Mirza vs. State of U.P. and another,
AIR 1959 All 769 - referred to.

List of Acts
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2014 - Clause 10.1 and 10.2.

List of Keywords
Appointment on compassionate ground, Spouse, Working and earning, Member of family, Pension, Privilege,
Service benefits, Terminal benefits, Cursory manner, Fundamental right, Statutory right, Ratio of the
Judgment, Praesenti, Bounty.

Case Arising From