SAMARESH BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ application has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner in consideration of the medical report in any right natured job equivalent to the rank of Security Officer which the petitioner was holding like Administrative Officer or Officer-on-Speciai Duty protecting his pay scale and further directing the respondents to release Rs. 18. 976. 22p. towards medical expenditure incurred by him. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was a member of the indian Armed Forces. After his release from the army in the year 1974 on termination of his contractual period in June 1978, he joined the Directorate of Dairy Development under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, since re-named as Animal Resources and Development Department, Government of West bengal, as Security Officer at Durgapur State dairy. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT the petitioner having fallen sick first contacted local doctor at Sub-Divisional hospital of Durgapur and thereafter at Bangur institute of Neurology in Calcutta. As per the advice of the doctor of the said Institute, the petitioner underwent a surgical operation of his cervical spinal cord as a result of which his entire body was paralysed. After being released from the Bangur Institute of Neurology, he came back to Durgapur. Thereafter, the petitioner in consultation with the. doctors at the said Sub-Divisional Hospital of Durgapur as per their advice contacted the Christian Medical college and Hospital. Vellor. The petitioner then went to the said hospital at Vellor. In Vellor after various tests and undergoing a major operation in his spinal cord and said hospital released the petitioner with a certificate of fitness to rejoin his duties. When the petitioner came back he was again checked by the doctors at Sub-Divisional Hospital of Durgapur and it was recommended that the petitioner is mentally alert and fit for office work with the help of wheel chair or crutches since his lower limbs were weak. The petitioner was issued a certificate recommending him for light duty and further stating therein that there is no difficulty for him in table work. ( 4 ) IN terms of such certificate as aforesaid, the petitioner applied for resumption of duty whereby he was asked to produce the certificate of fitness from the Chief Medical officer of Health or District Medical Officer. ( 4 ) IN terms of such certificate as aforesaid, the petitioner applied for resumption of duty whereby he was asked to produce the certificate of fitness from the Chief Medical officer of Health or District Medical Officer. Burdwan, which were also duly produced by the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Medical officer. Burdwan. after examining the petitioner found him mentally alert and physically fit to re-join duties of light nature and recommended that the petitioner is competent to perform his official jobs with the help of wheel chair. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the Deputy Secretary to the directorate of Health Services, Government of West Bengal directed that the medical examination is required to be made by the Presidency medical Board for the purpose of considering the prayer of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter was directed by a letter dated 20. 8. 88 issued by the Deputy Director of health Services (Admn.), Government of West bengal, to appear before the Presidency Medical Board on 29. 8. 88. The petitioner could not appear in the said Medical Board as by the time he received the letter the date was over. Thereafter on representation being made by the petitioner, he was once again asked to appear before the Medical Board on 5. 5. 89 arid the petitioner duly appeared before the said Board. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never communicated what was the decision taken in the said Medical Board. Thereafter, the Director of Medical Education set up another special Medical Board which ultimately examined the petitioner on 7. 2. 90 and the petitioner was communicated by a letter dated 3. 7. 90 that the said Board did not find the petitioner fit to resume his duties as "security Officer". It was not stated, however, by the said Board whether the petitioner could be appointed in a job entailing lighter duties. On further representation, the respondents ultimately wanted to engage the petitioner in the post of Lower Division Clerk, which, however, the petitioner did not agree. He further made a representation pointing out that it was opined by the doctors that he is fit for lighter duties and, therefore, should be given job similar to the rank of Security Officer giving pay protection. By the impugned letter, however such prayer of the petitioner was rejected and it was stated that the petitioner should be given pension. He further made a representation pointing out that it was opined by the doctors that he is fit for lighter duties and, therefore, should be given job similar to the rank of Security Officer giving pay protection. By the impugned letter, however such prayer of the petitioner was rejected and it was stated that the petitioner should be given pension. ( 6 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the case it may be recorded that after filing of affidavit-in-opposition none appeared on behalf of the State The mater was first taken up by this Court on 5. 2. 99. As none appeared for the respondents after hearing the matter for some time this Court directed the learned Advocate for the petitioner to give notice to the learned Advocate for the respondents intimating that the matter will be taken up for consideration the next date. It appears pursuant to the order of the court notice was issued to the learned Advocate for the respondents, even then, on the next dates also when the Court heard the matter on 3. 3. 99 and 30. 3. 99 learned Advocate for the respondents did not appear. ( 7 ) IT appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents that the facts pleaded in the writ petition have not really been disputed by the respondents. It may also be recorded in this connection that the original affidavit-in-opposition was not in the record but after affirmation of such affidavit a copy was served upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner to which a reply was also submitted. The Court relied upon copy of such affidavit-in-opposition served upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner produced before this court. From the said affidavit-in-opposition. it appears that it is admitted that the petitioner was offered appointment as L. D. S. with the 'existing scale of pay attached to the post of security Officer as personal to him to safeguard his financial hardship and his prayer for appointment in the post of Administrative officer equivalent to the post of Security Officer was not accepted by the Animal Resources and development Department, which recommended payment of invalid pension to the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE facts pleaded in the writ petition thus not having been disputed, the question for determination before this Court is whether the petitioner should have been appointed in the post equivalent to the post of Security Officer in the same scale of pay giving him pay protection. It is also to be considered by this court whether the respondents should be directed to pay the amount expended by the petitioner for his medical expenses. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in this connection. Firstly, the petitioner relied on the case of Norendra Kumar Chandla v. State of haryana and Ors. where the Hon'ble Supreme court was considering the question whether the petitioner in the said case for his physical disablement resulting from imputation of his arm due to Sarcoma (Cancer) should be directed to be appointed in a suitable post, he being unable to perform his duties of the post, he was holding. It has been held by the supreme Court in the said case that Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to which when he is unable to perform the duties of the post he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge, the duties. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder :--"article 21 protect the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. When an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts, he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a matriculate, he is eligible for the post of LDC for LDC apart from matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not a must, In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent-Board to relax his passing of typing test and to appoint him as a LDC. For a Clerk, typing generally is not a must, In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent-Board to relax his passing of typing test and to appoint him as a LDC. Admittedly on the date when he had unfortunate operation, he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2. 300 Necesarily. therefore, his last drawn pay has to be protected. Since he has been rehabilitated in the post of ldc. we direct the respondent to appoint him to the post of LDC protecting his scale of pay of Rs. 1,400-2,300 and direct to pay all the arrears of salary. " ( 10 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court rendered in, the aforesaid case is very much applicable in the instant case. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner, an ex-army personnel, was performing the duties of Security Officer but unfortunately became invalid after undregoing an operation in his spinal cord in Calcutta. After he went to vellor, he underwent a further operation. Since it has been found that the lower limbs of the petitioner are weak, both doctors at Vellor as also at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Durgapur opined that he is fit for duties of lighter nature. Since the petitioner is unable to perform his duties as Security Officer, the respondent authorities must make all endeavour to appoint him in a post equivalent to the post of Security officer which renders desk job giving him adequate pay protection. It is not really understood by this Court as to how the petitioner was initially offered the job of LDC. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Security officer and therefore, belongs to Officers' grade. It is also not the case of the responsible that the petitioner is not qualified for administrative job. Admittedly, the petitioner holds the Master Degree in English. ( 11 ) IN the aforesaid Supreme Court case although the writ petitioner asked for being appointed as U. D. C. , the Supreme Court did not allow such prayer in view of the fact that there were two channels for appointment to the post of U. D. C. one by promotion and another by direct recruitment. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation or law graduation is the minimum educational qualification which the writ petitioner in the said case did not possess. For a direct recruit, graduation or post-graduation or law graduation is the minimum educational qualification which the writ petitioner in the said case did not possess. But at the same time, the petitioner in the said case was a Matriculate and the Supreme Court was of the view that because of the fact that he is a Matriculate, he also cannot be offered the post of carrier attendant as sought to be done by the respondents in the said case. Ultimately, it was directed that he being a Matriculate and being eligible to the post of L. D. C. such post should be offered to him. In the instant case, it appears to this Court that the respondents have no cared to apply their mind at all in the matter. Nothing is clear from the order or even from the affidavit why the writ petitioner was offered the post of L. D. C. although he possesses higher qualification for being appointed in any higher post. ( 12 ) IT is also not clear from the affidavit as to why ultimately, he was directed to accept invalid pension. I am constrained to hold that such conduct of the respondents only betrays their lack of concern for an officer of State government who, being afflicted with such an ailment is unable to perform the duties of his post. Following the aforesaid decision of the supreme Court I am of the view that such action of the respondents certainly affects the right to life of the petitioner which includes right to livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents, therefore, must offer to the writ petitioner any administrative post involving desk work and having similar pay scale to the post of Security Officer. ( 13 ) THE claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the cost incurred by him for treatment also appears to this Court to be fully justified. ( 14 ) IN the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Moninher Singh Chawla and Ors, the Hon'ble supreme Court was dealing with similar circumstances. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Government was required to reimburse the expenses incurred by the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner in the said case stayed in the approved hospital for treatment. v. Moninher Singh Chawla and Ors, the Hon'ble supreme Court was dealing with similar circumstances. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Government was required to reimburse the expenses incurred by the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner in the said case stayed in the approved hospital for treatment. ( 15 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Devindar Singh Shergil v. State of punjab and Ors. , may also be referred to in this connection. ( 16 ) IT is not disputed by the respondents in the present case that the petitioner did not recover after undergoing operation in Calcutta at the Barigur Hospital but only after he went to Vellore and underwent a further operation he recovered. Under such circumstances. I do not find any justification whatsoever as to why the amount expended by the petitioner for treatment in such hospital should not be reimbursed by the respondents under the special facts and circumstances of the case particularly when right to health is now also treated as part and parcel of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of State of punjab v. Moninder Singh Chawla (supra ). the Supreme court held as under:-"it is contended for the State that though the Government had granted ex post facto sanction through the Medical board and permitted the patient to undergo treatment outside the State with the policy, for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred and the medical treatment taken in the hospital to the government servant/pensioners or dependents, as per rules, the Government has imposed a condition to pay room rent at the rates charged by the aiims for stay in the hospital. The reimbursement will be given at those rates. The Government therefore, is not obliged to pay the actual expenses incurred by the patient while taking the treatment as in the patient in the hospital, for rent. We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the Government. It is seen that the Government has decided in the proceedings dated 8,10. 1991 to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the punjab Government employees/pensioners and dependents on treatment taken abroad in a private hospital. We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the Government. It is seen that the Government has decided in the proceedings dated 8,10. 1991 to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the punjab Government employees/pensioners and dependents on treatment taken abroad in a private hospital. It is stated in pragraph 2 and 3 that the government has prepared a list of those diseases for which a specialised treatment is not available in the Punjab Government Hospitals but it is available in certain identified private hospitals, both within the outside the State. It was, therefore, decided to recognise these hospitals for treatment of the diseases mentioned against their names in the enclosed list for the Punjab Government employees/pensioners and their dependents. The terms and conditions contained in the letter under reference would remain applicable. The Government can. however, revise the list in future. The name of the disease for which the treatment is not available in the Punjab Government Hospitals is shown as open Heart Surgery and the name of the private hospital is shown as Escorts heart Institute, New Delhi as one of the approved hospitals institutions. Thus, for open heart surgery or heart disease the escorts Heart Institute is an authorised and recognised institution by the government of Punjab. Consequently, when the patient was admitted and had taken the treatment in the hospital and had incurred the expenditure towards room charges, inevitably the consequential rent paid for the room during his stay is an integral part of his expenditure incurred for the treatment. Consequentaly. the Government is required to reimburse the expenditure incurred for the period during which the patient stayed in the approved hospital for treatment. It is incongruous that while the patient is admitted to undergo treatment, he is refused the reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred towards room rent and is given the expenditure of the room rent chargeable in another institute whereat he had not actually undergone treatment. Under these circumstances, the contention of the state Government is obvioussly untenable and incongruous. We hold that the High Court was right in giving the direction for reimbursement of a sum of Rupees 20,000/- incurred by the respondent towards the room rent for his stay while undergoing treatment in escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. " ( 17 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid the writ application succeeds. We hold that the High Court was right in giving the direction for reimbursement of a sum of Rupees 20,000/- incurred by the respondent towards the room rent for his stay while undergoing treatment in escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. " ( 17 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid the writ application succeeds. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner in a post involving light natured job equivalent to the rank of Security Officer involving administrative work (desk work) protecting his pay scale positively within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The respondents are further directed to reimburse the sum of Rs. 18,976. 22 (Rupees Eighteen Thousand nine Hundred Seventy-Six and Paise twently two) incurred by the petitioner towards his medical expenses, which amount is also not disputed by the respondents in the affidavit. Such reimbursement must be made within a month from the date of communication of the order. ( 18 ) SO far as the prayer of the petitioner for payment of the further sum of Rs. 60,000 (Rupees Sixty Thousand) is concerned, the respondents within two months from the date of communication of the order shall consider such claim of the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and shall pass appropriate order for reimbursement after satisfying as to such claim of the petitioner. ( 19 ) IT also appears to this Court that the petitioners' prayer for regularisation of his period of absence from 1. 1. 87 till date has not been entertained by the respondents inspite of representation. I do not find any justification whatsoever on the part of the respondents for such action since such absence appears to this Court to be not wilful but for his aforesaid unfortunate ailment. ( 20 ) THE respondents are further directed to regularise such absence of the petitioner by passing appropriate order winthin a month from the date of communication of the order first by adjusting from medical leave, earned leave and half pay leave due to him, and thereafter by granting extraordinary leave without pay. ( 21 ) LET writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously. Petition allowed.