CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 3 others vs Syed MUBARAK ALI ZAIDI
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Sindh regarding the medical treatment entitlement of a disabled son of a retired WAPDA employee. The core legal question concerned whether WAPDA authorities are legally obligated under the relevant service rules to provide medical treatment to disabled children of retired employees irrespective of their age. The Supreme Court held that in light of Rule 17 read with Rule 2(c) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules, 1979, and given that the petitioner conceded that the designated hospitals are on WAPDA's panel and that WAPDA has no objection to providing treatment at its own and empaneled hospitals regardless of the son's age, the High Court's order directing medical treatment at the specified hospitals was unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, laying down that dependent disabled children of employees are entitled to medical facilities as per the governing attendance rules.
- Are WAPDA authorities legally obligated to provide medical treatment to the disabled children of retired employees irrespective of their age under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules, 1979?
- Whether the High Court's direction to provide medical treatment at WAPDA hospitals and empaneled hospitals to a retired employee's disabled son is sustainable under Rule 17 read with Rule 2(c) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules, 1979?
- Rule 2(c), Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules 1979
- Rule 17, Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules 1979
1. ' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 8-6- 2010 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad.
2. The respondent No,1, who was a Budget and ,Accounts Officer of WAPDA, retired from service on 1- 10-1990. His grievance was that the WAPDA authorities, despite his hectic efforts, were not willing to provide medical treatment to his son, who suffered from permanent disability due to an accident that he met at the age of 17 years. The petitioner claimed that WAPDA authorities were under a legal obligation to allow medical treatment irrespective of their age to disabled children of serving or retired employees of WAPDA and in this he placed reliance on Rule 17 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules, 1979 read with Rule 2(c) ibid. He, therefore, filed Constitutional Petition before High Court of Sindh, which was disposed of by a learned Division Bench in the following terms:-- "The hospitals that are not only being run by the WAPDA itself but also such Hospitals which are on the panel of the WAPDA i,e, those hospitals with which WAPDA has an agreement for giving treatment to its employees or their family members. In the present case,. The counsel for the WAPDA states that such contract exists with Wali Bhai Rajputana Hospital Hyderabad and Red Crescent Hospital Unit No, 6 Latifabad, Hyderabad. Hence reading this definition of Hospital in Rule 2 with Rule 17, the son of the petitioner, apart from the Hospitals which are being run by the WAPDA itself shall also be entitled for treatment in the above mentioned two Hospitals i,e, Wali Bhai Rajputana Hospital Hyderabad and Red Crescent Hospital Unit No,6 Latifabad, Hyderabad irrespective of his age."
3. ' During the course of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner when asked whether Wali Bhai Rajputana Hospital and Red Crescent Hospital Latifabad, Hyderabad are on the panel of WAPDA, furnished his answer in affirmative and stated that the WAPDA authorities do not have any objection regardless of age of son of the petitioner to provide medical treatment in the aforementioned two hospitals and other hospitals of WAPDA as per Rule 2(c) ibid which means all WAPDA indoor and out door hospitals. Perusal of relevant passage from impugned judgment reproduced above reflects that this is what learned Judges of Division Bench have, in their wisdom, ordered to be done. No other infirmity or legal defect has been pointed out in the impugned order.
4. Consequently, the impugned order warrants no interference. The petition is dismissed and leave refused.