Honble SHARMA, J.–The petitioner claims reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him in his operation amounting to Rs. 1,35,000/-. (2). Contextual facts depict that on June 20, 2001 the petitioner underwent coronary Artery By-pass Graft Surgery in Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre at New Delhi. In this regard the permission was granted by the Principal, SMS Medical College and Controller of the attached Hospitals Jaipur for getting his treatment done at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. But in the order dated May 31, 2001 it was mentioned that the petitioner will be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) only. The petitioner submitted reimbursement claim in the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- apart from Rs. 50,000/-. which had been given to him in advance after his operation. The copies of the bills in the sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- paid by the petitioner were also placed on record. The petitioner annexed with the writ petition the copy of the letter dated June 6, 2001 written by Accounts Officer to Supdt. of Escort Heart Institute and Research centre, New Delhi pointing out that the petitioner was entitled to receive treatment from the said hospital and an advance of Rs. 50,000/- had been released from the ESI. On denying the claim of reimbursement, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. (3). I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the returns submitted by respondents. (4). Article 47 of the Constitution makes improvement of public health a primary duty of the State. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (1), indicated that self preservation of ones 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. In Shanker Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others (2), the Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi has been recognized as a referral hospital or treatment of heart ailment of Government servants. The Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Bapna vs. State of Rajasthan (3), observed that a government officer is entitled to treatment outside the State when his case has been referred to a particular hospital for treatment. (5). The Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Bapna vs. State of Rajasthan (3), observed that a government officer is entitled to treatment outside the State when his case has been referred to a particular hospital for treatment. (5). At this juncture reference of Section 96-A of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 appears necessary which provides as under:- ``96-A. Reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of medical treatment. Claims of medical treatment of insured person and (where such medical benefit is extended to his family his family may be accepted in circumstances and subject to such conditions as the Corporation may be general or special order specify. (6). Since petitioner is insured under Regulations 1950, he is entitled to claim reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in respect of his medical treatment. (7). For these reasons, in allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to reimburse the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the petitioner within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.