D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a retired employee of the respondents, seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the respondents to make payment to him by way of reimbursement of his medical bill for Rs. 66,947. 34 claim for which was submitted by him on 25 March 1991. The petitioner also claims interest on this amount for delayed payment at the rate of 15% per annum. ( 2 ) THERE are two respondents; namely, the Export Inspection Council and Export Inspection Agency, both constituted under the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. It is not disputed that both the respondents are "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was working with the respondents as Assistant Director (Administration) and he retired from service on 1 October 1992. During the course of his employment, in March 1988 the petitioner had to undergo an operation for knee joint implantation. This operation was performed on him by Dr. Ashok Raj Gopal at Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The entire medical claim amounting to Rs. 53,555. 38 raised by the petitioner for the said operation was reimbursed to him by the respondents as per the rules. The petitioner, however, again met with an accident on 9 October 1990 and as a result of which he suffered fracture of his thigh bone which had to be operated upon. On account of this accident the petitioner also suffered dislocation of his right knee joint which had been implanted in March 1988. On the same day the petitioner went to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (A. 1. 1. M. S. ). Seeing his condition at the O. P. D. of A. 1. 1. M. S. the doctors advised him to get treatment from Dr. Ashok Raj Gopal who had earlier operated upon him. The traumatic condition of the petitioner demanded an emergency double operation and implant which, he said, the doctors at A. 1. 1. M. S. were reluctant to perform. The petitioner, therefore, went to Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital, New Delhi, for his operation and treatment and remained there from 9 October 1990 to11 October 1990, from 1 8 October 1990 to 27 October 1990 and again upto 25 January 1991 for recovery and treatment. 1. M. S. were reluctant to perform. The petitioner, therefore, went to Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital, New Delhi, for his operation and treatment and remained there from 9 October 1990 to11 October 1990, from 1 8 October 1990 to 27 October 1990 and again upto 25 January 1991 for recovery and treatment. He himself bore the expenses of double operation and implant and the expenses of hospitalisation and treatment including expenses on medicines, artificial appliances etc. After his recovery he submitted his medical claim bill to the respondents which was submitted in the prescribed form as per rules. The petitioner claimed reimbursement of Rs. 66,947. 34. This bill was submitted by him on 25 March 1991. The respondents did not respond in spite of various reminders by the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. It was only on 23 March 1992, after a year of the submission of the bill by the petitioner, that the respondents sought the following clarifications :- "1. Instead of original cash memo in respect of the purchase of artifical knee joint, the duplicate cash memo has been submitted. The reasons for not producing the original cash memo may please be apprised. 2. The claim for indoor treatment and outdoor treatments to be preferred separately whereas it has been observed that the treatment taken as indorr patient and outdoor patient has been claimed through the same bill. While, the main appliance has been purchased from Delhi, the related spares and screws etc. , have been purchased from Jaipur, the reasons for this may also be furnished. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner gave clarifications by letter dated 11 May 1992. Nothing again was heard, and on 1 October 1992 the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner said he was miserable and suffered mental agony as the respondents gave him impression all the time that his bill will be sanctioned but no reimbursement was forthcoming. Petitioiner says he is now almost bed ridden for the last several months. He then sent a legal notice dated 13 December 1993 to which the respondents sent a criptic reply on 4 January 1994 which is as under:- "sir, Please refer to your letter dated 13. 12. 93 on the above subject. Petitioiner says he is now almost bed ridden for the last several months. He then sent a legal notice dated 13 December 1993 to which the respondents sent a criptic reply on 4 January 1994 which is as under:- "sir, Please refer to your letter dated 13. 12. 93 on the above subject. In this connection, I am directed to say that there is no provision under the rules for re-imbursement of cost of Artificial Appliances for second time. As such, the request of your client. Shri G. S. Bhangoo, Ex-Asstt. Director of this office could not be entertained. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S. P. Saxena) Asstt. Director (Admn.)"this led the petitioner to file the present petition. ( 5 ) IN answer to show cause notice the respondents have referred to Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, and said that these rules would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. They now say that the petitioner would have been entitled to reimbursement on satisfying the following conditions :- " (I) That the appliance should have been certified as essential by the concerned specialist. (2) The specialist should be from a Government/recognised hospital. (3) The appliances are to be procured from centres/organizations which have been recognised by the Central Government. Respondents do not say that these conditions were not satisfied. They say as per rules the petitioner is not entitled to cost of reimbursement for the same artificial appliance for the second time, and further that the petitioner did not follow the correct procedure inasmuch as the appliance had not been procured from a centre or organisation which had been recognised by the Central Government. It is further stated that when in March 1988 petitioner had to undergo an operation for knee joint implantation his bill was for Rs. 53,555. 38 and now he is claiming Rs. 66,947. 34. ( 6 ) THERE is no substance in the pleas taken by the respondents. The petitioner submitted the bill in the prescribed form and gave all the clarifications. The respondents have just made a vague allegation that the petitioner did not follow the correct procedure. As to where the petitioner faulted, nothing has been said and no particulars have been given. The petitioner earlier was never informed of any procedural lapse. The petitioner submitted the bill in the prescribed form and gave all the clarifications. The respondents have just made a vague allegation that the petitioner did not follow the correct procedure. As to where the petitioner faulted, nothing has been said and no particulars have been given. The petitioner earlier was never informed of any procedural lapse. It is startling proposition that if an employee suffers an accident second time the rules for medical reimbursement do not provide for cost of artificial appliances for the same limb second time. Rules cannot be read in such a manner which is most distressing. In fact we do not find any such rule. Even if such a rule exists, it would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair, and we would strike it down. ( 7 ) IT is unfortunate that the petitioner has been deprived of his lawful dues all these years. Attitude of the respondents has unnecessary caused pain and hardship to the petitioner. He is entitled to the relief claimed forthwith, We, therefore, allow the petition and direct the respondents to reimburse to the petitioner his medical bill for Rs. 66. 947. 34 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the interest accruing from a date one month after the date of submission of the bill. by the petitioner. The amount, thus, due to the-petitioner shall be paid to him within one month from today without fail. Petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/ -. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents for compliance at once.