JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-Sri Pal Chand Mehta who retired as Principal, Government College, Karauli has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the total amount spent by him on his treatment alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of submission of bill till the date of payment. 2. The facts of the case in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of deciding the question, which has arisen in this writ petition, are that the petitioner went on a family visit to Delhi on 25.6.1997 where he encountered a heart problem and was removed to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi in a precarious condition on an ambulance and after several tests and check-ups it was detected that he was suffering from Triple vessel blockade which in the opinion of the doctors was considered dangerous to life and a Bye-Pass Graft Surgery was advised. Thereafter, he was operated upon for Coronary Bye-Pass Graft Surgery on 3.7.1997 which was successful and, therefore, he was discharged from the hospital on 9.7.1997. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- towards payment to the Escorts Hospital & Research Institute, New Delhi vide Bill No.002455 dated 9.7.1997. The petitioner after recovery and on return to Jaipur submitted the bills for reimbursement as per the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1970'). As per these rules a retired Government servant is entitled to be reimbursed all the medical. expenses relating to his personal treatment and his family members. 3. The petitioner, however did not receive any response in regard to reimbursement of his medical claim due to which he contacted the office of respondent No. 1 where he was informed that certain objections have been raised in regard to his medical bills and was advised to get it removed expeditiously. The petitioner, thereafter submitted a formal representation to the Dy. Secretary-Finance (G&T), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur with a request for reimburse of his medical expenses expeditiously in view of the financial hardship faced by him. After a long wait, the petitioner received a reply by the Government of Rajasthan, through the Dy. The petitioner, thereafter submitted a formal representation to the Dy. Secretary-Finance (G&T), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur with a request for reimburse of his medical expenses expeditiously in view of the financial hardship faced by him. After a long wait, the petitioner received a reply by the Government of Rajasthan, through the Dy. Secretary-Finance (G&T) dated 10.6.1998 informing him that he had taken treatment outside the State of Rajasthan but had not submitted the recommendation of Principal of a Medical College of Rajasthan for undergoing treatment outside the State and in absence of such certificate the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi could not be reimbursed. In this regard he was also advised that he should contact the Principal, Medical College, Kota to constitute a Board and grant him necessary certificate of recommendations so that further action regarding reimbursement so that further action regarding reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner could be possible. The petitioner accordingly contacted the respondent No.2-the Principal, Medical College, Kota, but the Principal expressed his inability for post facto constitution of Medical Board on the ground that no such provision was available under the rules to constitute a Medical Board after having taken the treatment outside the State. He, therefore, declined to constitute a Board to grant post facto approval of the treatment taken outside the State and advised him to contact the officers of the State Government to guide him in the matter. The petitioner thereafter did not succeed in obtaining the post facto recommendations of a Medical Board for taking treatment outside the State nor the State Government responded favourably for post facto approval of his treatment outside the State of Rajasthan and the petitioner, consequently could not press for reimbursement of his medical bills. Having been left with no other alternative remedy, he filled this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents for reimbursement of his medical bills and if necessary to constitute a Medical Board for granting him post facto sanction for his treatment outside the State of Rajasthan. 4. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondents on the aforesaid facts and circumstances in response to which a counter-affidavit was filed. The counsel for the respondents relied upon Rule 7.1. 4. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondents on the aforesaid facts and circumstances in response to which a counter-affidavit was filed. The counsel for the respondents relied upon Rule 7.1. of the Rules of 1970 and submitted that the respondent-State of Rajasthan was justified in refusing the reimbursement since the petitioner had not undergone the treatment as per the rules in this regard which lays down as follows: "A Government servant and the members of his family suffering from a disease for which treatment is not available in any Government hospital in the State shall be entailed to medical attendance and treatment to the extent indicated in sub-rule (2) of this rule in a Hospital/Institution outside the state recognised by the Government, provided that it is certified by the Principal of a Medical college-Director of Medical & Health Services on the basis of opinion of the Authorised Medical Attendant to the effect that the treatment of a particular disease from which the patient is suffering is not available in any Government Hospital in the State and it is considered absolutely essential for the recovery of the patient to have treatment at a hospital outside the state." 5. The respondents' advocate in view of this rule submitted that the petitioner before undergoing treatment at the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi should have obtained the certificate by the Principal of a Medical College or Director of Medical & Health Services to the effect that his treatment outside the State was absolutely essential for his recovery. 6. The petitioner's plea on the contrary all-through has been that considering the emergency of the situation, it was not possible for him to obtain the certificate prior to taking the treatment and hence post facto approval should have been permitted by the State Government through the Principal of Medical College or Director of Medical & Health Services after which reimbursement of medical expenses should have been allowed. 7. 7. The question, therefore, which emerges for consideration is whether the respondent-State Government is justified in refusing to permit reimbursement of the medical expenses of the petitioner on the plea of non-compliance of Rule 7.1 of the Rules of 1970 in a circumstance when it was practically not possible and feasible to obtain approval from the State Government for taking treatment outside the State and whether post facto approval should have been granted to the petitioner for undergoing treatment outside the State of Rajasthan considering the situation.Fortunately for the petitioner this question has cropped up on more than one occasion in several cases before the Supreme Court as also this High Court and other High Courts. One of the cases on this question is reported in (1996)2 Supreme Court Cases, 336 : [ 1996(1) SLR 786 (SC)], delivered in the matter of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., wherein an employee of the Punjab Government underwent an open heart surgery in a foreign country (England) without subjecting himself to medical examination since he developed complication at Birmingham at England where he underwent an open heart surgery. Although the expenses incurred by him was much higher, he claimed reimbursement as per policy of the Government of Punjab which had permitted specialised treatment of open heart surgery in its own hospital and a number of private hospitals including Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi. The employee in this case, therefore, in all fairness claimed reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him at the rates prevalent in Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi. The State Government, however, agreed to pay him only on the basis of rates prevalent in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) being a Government hospital but the learned judges of the Supreme Court held that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The learned judges took notice of the fact that if the appellant had remained in India and had to undergo the treatment for his heart problem, he could have gone to Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre like many others did to save his life. But considering the exigency of the situation he took the treatment at London incurring considerable expenses. But considering the exigency of the situation he took the treatment at London incurring considerable expenses. The doctors conducting his operation there, were presumed to have done so as one of time and essential. On that hypothesis, it was held that it was fair and just that the respondents pay to the appellant-employee, the rates admissible as per Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi. 8. Similarly in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla & Ors. reported in (1997) 2, Supreme Court Cases, 83, the Government had refused to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the employee towards room-rent which objection was struck down as illegal by the learned judges of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that room-rent paid to hospital by the Government servant was reimbursable to the employee by the State Government and could not be denied as the Government is under a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. It was held that the employee was entitled to the room-rent actually paid by him and not at a lesser rate charged by the another institute, as was the contention of the State of Punjab. 9. In yet another case, a Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of Shanker Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2000(3) WLC (Raj.) 585 : [2000(6) SLR 425 (Raj.)] , allowed the claim of the employee towards medical reimbursement of the employee's wife who died after surgery at Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre at New Delhi. The State Government had rejected the claim on the ground that the treatment by the wife of the employee was not taken in a Government hospital or an institute approved by the State of Rajasthan. The writ petition by the learned Single Judge had been dismissed on the ground that no competent authority had referred the case of the employee's wife to the hospital outside the State and hence the concerned Government servant was not entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred on the treatment of his wife. The writ petition by the learned Single Judge had been dismissed on the ground that no competent authority had referred the case of the employee's wife to the hospital outside the State and hence the concerned Government servant was not entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred on the treatment of his wife. The learned judges of the Division Bench took a contrary view and held that it was physically impossible for the Government servant in such circumstance of the case to obtain the certificate from the competent authority of Rajasthan and in a situation where the treatment of the patient was most important-the petitioner-employee was entitled to take his wife for treatment to any institution recognised by the State of Rajasthan and in case two institutions for same treatment were available, the petitioner could choose either and hence denial of reimbursement was unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. The respondent-State was, therefore, directed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the Government servant on the treatment of his wife who had expired. 10. On a perusal of the ratio of the cases referred to hereinbefore it is obvious that the view that a Government servant is entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him on his treatment or the treatment of his family member outside the State as per his choice of hospital which is enlisted by the State Government is clearly settled by now. 11. Hence the only question which remains to be considered is whether reimbursement of medical expenses can be refused on the ground that treatment was not referred by the Medical Board of the State prior to undergoing the treatment. Having deliberated and anxiously considered this question in the light of the ratio of the decisions referred to hereinabove, the Government servant, in my opinion would be required to get his case referred by the Principal of the Medical College or the Director of Medical & Health Services in a normal circumstance where he proceeds for treatment outside the State of Rajasthan with planning and the Government servant or his family member is not facing an immediate threat to his life, meaning thereby that when there is sufficient time for him to move for a planned treatment outside the State of Rajasthan. But there may be situations as in this case as also in other cases referred to hereinbefore where the Government servant or his family member is faced with an emergent situation and on account of distance or paucity of time it is not possible for him to get his case referred for treatment to a medical institute outside the State of Rajasthan. In that situation, the insistence on the Rule to the extent that the Government employee should defer his treatment and run around for approval by the competent authority of the State so that his case could be referred to a hospital outside the State for treatment would have the effect of frustrating the very spirit of the rule for which it has been framed. In an ordinary circumstance where there is sufficient time for the Government employee and his family member to seek an opinion of the competent authority of the State, the Government employee would be bound by the rules but as already stated, this rule cannot be enforced to the extent so as to apply to a situation which is beyond the control of the Government servant or his family member seeking approval for referring the treatment to a hospital outside the State at the risk of the life of the patient whether it be the Government servant himself or his family members. If the Government employee is in a position to fairly and reasonably establish that he was faced with an emergent situation and the doctors advised for instant treatment/operation, approval for referring that treatment to a hospital outside the State will be deemed to have been granted to such treatment. If a rule is essentially beneficial in nature, it cannot be permitted to be applied in a manner which results into frustrating the very object which it was framed. If a rule is essentially beneficial in nature, it cannot be permitted to be applied in a manner which results into frustrating the very object which it was framed. Besides this if it were to be held that the employees who took treatment outside the State after their case were referred by the Principal of a Medical College or Director Medical & Health Services would alone be entitled to reimbursement to the exclusion of those who were forced by circumstance to take the treatment outside the State due to the exigency of the situation, the same is bound to result into discrimination between one class of employees and the other class which cannot be held as reasonable classification since an interpretation of this nature would surely suffer the vice of discrimination for no fault of the employees who have undergone the treatment outside the State due to reasons beyond their control. 12. Bearing these reasons in mind, when the case of the petitioner is examined it could be inferred that the petitioner had gone to Delhi on his routine visit where he had developed complications and the doctors advised him for operation instantly which could not be postponed and in that situation if he had to undergo the bye-pass surgery it will have to be reasonably presumed that it was a fit case for referring the case for treatment to a hospital outside the State. If the rule itself envisages that an employee can exercise his choice of treatment to a place outside the State, then it cannot be insisted upon that the employee should postpone the treatment outside the State even at the risk of his life as the Rule itself permits the choice of treatment to anywhere outside the station in consonance with the principal that the right to life is a constitutional guarantee. In fact the Rule in regard to medical treatment itself appears to have been framed by the Government of Rajasthan as also by other States bearing that in mind. In fact the Rule in regard to medical treatment itself appears to have been framed by the Government of Rajasthan as also by other States bearing that in mind. This rule obviously lies within the domain of beneficial legislation and its interpretation cannot be made so as to defeat the very object of the rule and hence insistence on the requirement of this rule to obtain the certificate from the competent authority referring treatment outside the State cannot be insisted upon under an abnormal circumstance where the employee was faced with an extraordinary situation where it was not possible for him to obtain such a certificate prior to his treatment. From the facts of this case it is apparent that the petitioner was faced with the situation of this nature when he was compelled to undergo open heart surgery and he chose a hospital which was enlisted by the Government of Rajasthan where patients could be referred for such treatment. 13. Considering all these aspects the petitioner cannot be held to have violated the rule so as to deny him the claim for reimbursement of his medical expenses. The approved or post facto approval of the treatment by a competent authority for such situation, ought to have been exempted or it could be deemed to have been granted by the Competent Authority. Hence the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner at the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi is allowed. Any order passed by any authority to the contrary shall be treated to have been quashed by this order. However, the claim for interest on the amount of reimbursement is rejected as I do not consider it justified in the facts and circumstances of this case.The writ petition accordingly stands allowed, but without any order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******