JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - A princely sum of Rs. 561/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner which had been paid to him as cost of treatment of his dependants on the ground that treatment should have been taken at a hospital at which Government servant is entitled for treatment free of charge, at the place of his posting and expenses having been incurred for treatment at City Hospital, Cuttack are impermissible and are to be recovered. For this purpose, reliance is placed on a notification issued during pre-independence days i.e. 9-10-1945 to be precise as issued by Government of Orissa in Health and L. S. C. Department. Reference was also made to Orissa Medical (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1947 (n short, the 'Rules'). 2. Mr. B. K. Patnaik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while a person takes a dependant for treatment, he is more concerned about his or her health, about free treatment at a hospital where he is entitled to free treatment. Learnen counsel for the State supported the action. 3. Question is whether the pre-historic notification if we may use that expression should hold the field. Times have changed and facilities available at hospitals in cities may not be available in semi-urban or rural areas. It would all depend upon the nature of ailment and treatment which is necessary. Facilities for treating the dependant or employee himself may not be available at the nearby hospital where free treatment is available. When it is a question of life or loss of it, a hair-spliting decision to go to nearby hospital to avail free treatment may not always come to mind of a person. A person has fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to take steps in self-preservation in case of ailment. It is to be borne in mind that self-preservation of one's life is the necessary concommitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self-defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to verses 1/; 18, 20, and 22 in Chapter XVI of the Garuda Purana. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self-defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to verses 1/; 18, 20, and 22 in Chapter XVI of the Garuda Purana. (A Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine : "17 Without the body how can one Vinea dehens kasyaapi obtain the objects of human life ? canpurushaartho no Therefore protecting the body which vidyate Tasmaaddeham is the wealth, one should perform dhanam rakshetpunyakar- the deeds of merit. maani saadhayet 18. One should protect his body Rakshayatservadaatmaa- which is responsible for everything, hamaatman servasya bha- He who protects himseif by all ajanam Rakshana yatna efforts, will see many suspicious maatishthejja vanbhaadra occasions in life, ani pashyati 20. The wise always undertake the. Sharirarakshanopasyash protective measures for the body, kriyante saryades budhaih Even the persons suffering from Nacchanti cha punestyaa- leprosy and other diseases do not gamapi kushthaadiroginah wish to get-rid-of the body 22. If one does not prevent what is Aatmaiva yadi naatmaana- unpleasant to himself, who else mahitebhyo nivaarayet will do it ? Therefore one should Konsyo hitakarasmaadaat- do what is good to himself." maanam taarayishyati. These aspects have been eloquently highlighted by the apex Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and ors. 1996 (2) SCC 11. Linked with the right of self-preservation, is the anxiety of a person to see that he or his dependants do not suffer on account of inadequate treatment. Such anxiety is normal human behaviour and if a person has taken his parents to a nearby place where better facilities are available, no obnoxious notification should stand on the way. The pre-independence notification was issued at a time when right of life was not recognised to be as sacrosanct, sacred as it is done today. Right to life cannot be isolated from a healthy body, which is the very foundation for all human activities. Life as embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution does not mean a mere animal existence. It has to mean a life befitting human dignity. Health of any person is an integral facet of his right to life. Right to life cannot be isolated from a healthy body, which is the very foundation for all human activities. Life as embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution does not mean a mere animal existence. It has to mean a life befitting human dignity. Health of any person is an integral facet of his right to life. Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1943 assures that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family ......including medical care, measure for sickness and disability. Article 39(c) of the Constitution enjoins upon the State to direct its policies to secure the health and strength of workers. A healthy body is the very foundation for all human activities. That is why the adage 'SARIRAMADYAM KHALU DHARMA SADHANAM'. In a welfare State, therefore, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congeinal to good health. Several obligations of the State can be culled out from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution. The State is required to effectuate them in order that the resultant pictured by the Constitution Fathers may become a reality. Maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the society which the Constitution makers envisaged. Attending to public health, therefore, is of high priority--perhaps the one at the top. These aspects have been eloquently dealt with by the apex Court in Vincent v. Union of India . In order to lead a meaningful life every person should be physically fit and mentally alert. The Hospitals have a big role to play for keeping a person in such conditions. Dealing with the question of right to health, and medical care of a workman, the apex Court observed that it is a fundamental right. (See Consumer Education and Research Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 SCC 604). Right to health of a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life and have not only a meaningful would lead a life of misery. Lack of health denudes his livelihood. Medical facilities to protect the health of the workers are fundametal rights to workmen. v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 SCC 604). Right to health of a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life and have not only a meaningful would lead a life of misery. Lack of health denudes his livelihood. Medical facilities to protect the health of the workers are fundametal rights to workmen. Security against sickness and disablement is a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Ar. 7 (b) of the International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and under Articles 39(e), 38 and 21 of the Constitution. (See LIC of India and Another Vs. Consumer Education and Research center and Others. We have highlighted these aspects to show the importance of hospitals in the society and the purpose of their existence. 4. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that direction for deduction is untenable. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. A. Deb, J. I agree.