' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal is by the leave of the Court against judgment, dated 4th October, 1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad Camp at Karachi.
2. Precisely stating facts giving rise to instant matter are that appellant is in the employment of WAPDA as Sub-Engineer (BPS-16) and for the purpose of medical treatment he is being governed under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees Medical Attendance Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") (Amended upto 1992). The wife of appellant Mst. Najma Farooq is also a Government servant employed in Education Department of Government of Sindh and is being governed under the Sindh Civil Servants (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1993. It may be noted that in such capacity she is drawing fixed medical allowance at the rate of Rs,60 per month. It is the case of WAPDA against the appellant that he had been availing medical facilities for his wife on false declaration of her being dependent upon him while she is Government Servant in Education Department of Government of Sindh and is drawing medical allowance from her department. To provide an opportunity to the appellant to clarify his position he was served with an explanation letter on 15th September, 1992 which was followed by another letter, dated 8th March, 1993. The appellant denied allegations. The departmental authorities being dissatisfied from his explanation issued charge- sheet, dated 30th August, 1993 to him alongwith statement of allegation. The reply so submitted by him was again found unsatisfactory, as an inquiry committee was constituted to investigate in the matter asuchnd to submit its report. The Inquiry Committee on 12th December, 1993 found the appellant guilty of the charge. Accordingly he was served with show-cause notice dated 15th December, 1993 alongwith photo-copy of Inquiry Committee report and on completion of these proceedings vide order, dated 1st January, 1994 the competent authority passed following order against "(i) Recovery from pay of the presently known amount of Rs,5,440 (Rupees five thousand four hundred forty only), (in respect of consultation fees), re-imbursed illegally to the official (Mr. Faheemuddin Farham, Sub-Engineer) for the medical treatment of his non-dependent wife during the period 3-12-1986 to 17-5-1992 (cost of medicines supplied will be recovered later on).
(ii) Reduction to lower time scale at top. Of BPS-11 (1275-86-2665) w.e.f, 1-12-1993."
' Against above order appellant availed departmental remedy and thereafter preferred appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which has been disposed of vide impugned order, dated .4th October, 1994 in pursuance whereof the punishment of reduction to lower time scale was found unwarranted. However, punishment of recovery of Rs,5,440 was kept intact. As such instant proceedings have been filed.
3. Appellant appeared in person and argued that he has not made any mis declaration before the department for getting facility of medical treatment of his wife because she being an employee of Sindh Education Department is depending upon him, therefore, as per Rules was entitled for the medical bills which he has generally paid towards the fee of consultants. According to him Rs,60 fixed medical allowance being received by his wife is apart of her pay and this amount can only be utilized for purchasing medicines and for not making payment of consultancy to the Doctors.
Therefore, according to him the whole case cooked up against the appellant was based on mala tides and wrong interpretation of the relevant rules.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent department contended that as per Rules wife of an employee falls within the definition of "Family" and if she is dependent upon her husband then she can draw medical facilities but if she is not dependent and is herself in the Government job where medical facilities have been extended to the employees under the Rules then in that case she has to make an option either to have the benefit of medical facilities from her own department or she should avail such facilities from the department where her husband is working. According to the rules if she decides to opt for latter then she has to abandon the medical facilities and her husband has to make a declaration in this behalf in pursuance of the clarification letters, dated 11th October, 1992, 1st December, 1992 and 30th October, 1993.
5. We have heard the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent at length and have also gone through the relevant provisions of the Rules and Sindh Civil Servants (Medical Attendant)
Rules, 1993. According to Rule 2(b) of the Rules the "Family" has been defined as under:-- "(b) 'Family' means Employee's wife/husband, legitimate sons and daughters and step-children residing with and wholly dependent upon the employees. Only one wife is entitled to these facilities.
Divorced daughters of WAPDA employee are not entitled to avail of these facilities".
' Similarly under Rule 2(d) "Medical Attendance" has been defined as under:-- "(d) 'Medical Attendance' means an attendance in Out-Patients 'or Indoor Hospital including such pathological' bacteriological, radiological or other examinations that are considered essential by the authorised medical attendant and such consultations with a specialist on the advice of authorised medical attendant/D.G.M.S."
' As per the scheme of above rules it provides medical facilities to the employees and their families in WAPDA department. According to rule 3(c) of the Rules the WAPDA employee is entitled to opt for cash medical allowance as sanctioned by the authority from time to time plus certain restrictions.
Under rule 3(c) of the Rules notwithstanding the drawal of Cash Medical Allowance they and their families are also entitled for admission in WAPDA Hospital etc. In the instant case admittedly appellant charged cost of medicines as well as consultancy fee from the WAPDA for the treatment of his wife by declaring her to be his dependent without caring that she herself is in the employment of Education Department of Government of Sindh from where she was getting Rs,60 as fixed medical allowance, therefore, question for consideration would be as to whether for the purposes of WAPDA Rules the wife of appellant was dependent or not. In order to find out its answer it would be better to reproduce hereinbelow definition of the word "dependent" from Black's Law Dictionary Fifth. Edition as under:-- ' "Dependent, n. One who derives his or her main support from another. Means relying on, or subject to, someone else for support; not able to exist or sustain oneself, or to perform anything without the will, power or aid of someone else. Generally, for worker's compensation purposes, 'dependent' is one who relies on another for support or favour and one who is sustained by another. One who has relied upon descendent for support and who has reasonable expectation that such support will continue."
' Dependent.,adj. Deriving existence, support, or direction from another; conditioned, in respect to force or obligation, upon an extraneous act or fact."
As it has been pointed out hereinabove that spouse of appellant herself is in the Government Job, therefore, she is not wholly depending upon him as such for such reason she would not be covered by definition of "Family" under rule 2(b) of the Rules because she herself is getting medical allowance. Perhaps faced with this situation the General Manager of the WAPDA had issued clarification from time to time. In order to settle the issue that wife of a WAPDA employee if she is in the Government job reference to the Clarification, dated 11th October, 1992 would not be out of context as such same is reproduced hereinbelow:-- ' "A copy of Project Director, Project Planning (Southern Zone) WAPDA, Hyderabad Letter No,FSZ/PF/1'479, dated 27-9-1992 seeking clarification regarding medical facility to the wife of WAPDA employee in Government/private service is forwarded herewith for necessary clarification.
' This office is of the view that the WAPDA employee should submit a declaration in respect of his wife serving in Government or other department that his wife is not availing medical facility provided by her department."
The relevant provision of the Rule referred to hereinabove if is examined in the light of the definition of dependent and the clarification referred to hereinabove leaves no room to doubt that if the wife of a WAPDA employee is in a Government job from where she is getting medical facilities she would not be entitled to get medical facilities from the department of her husband unless a clarification is made by the employee that his wife is not availing such facility nor she is getting any medical allowance from the department where she is employed.
As far as the argument of the appellant that under the Sindh Civil Servants (Medical Attendance)
Rules, 1993 his spouse was not getting facility of consultation fee of doctors is concerned it has no substance in view of the definition of Authorised Medical Attendant under Rule 2(a) of the Sindh Rules and we are inclined to hold that as per the scheme of these rules employees of Sindh Government are entitled for full Medical facilities including services of an Authorised Medical Attendant etc. ' Thus, for the forgoing reasons we see no substance in instant appeal as such same is dismissed with no order as to costs.