ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL INVOLVES ONLY A TRIFLING ISSUE AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MEDICAL CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THE MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT WAS NOT PAID TO THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT AFTER HAVING BEEN TREATED FOR FOUR DAYS IN A HOSPITAL AT RIWARI, HE WAS THEREAFTER SHIFTED TO GANGA RAM HOSPITAL, NEW DELHI WHERE HE WAS ULTIMATELY OPERATED UPON. WE ARE INFORMED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT AT THE MATERIAL TIME GANGA RAM HOSPITAL WAS NOT A RECOGNISED HOSPITAL. 2. UNFORTUNATELY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER APPEAL DOES NOT EVEN SAY THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT WAS JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT GANGA RAM HOSPITAL WAS NOT A RECOGNISED HOSPITAL. THE HIGH COURT HAS GONE A STEP AHEAD AND DECIDED FOR ITSELF THAT IT WAS NOT A SITUATION OF EMERGENCY. IN OUR VIEW, THE HIGH COURT WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING A DECISION WHICH REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE AS TO THE DETAILS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS SHIFTED TO GANGA RAM HOSPITAL, OR MEDICAL TREATMENT GIVEN TO HIM IN THE HOSPITAL AT RIWARI AND HIS RESPONSE THERETO. 3. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN A GROUP OF WRIT PETITIONS WHERE SIMILAR PROBLEMS HAD ARISEN ON THE GROUND THAT THE HOSPITAL WHERE TREATMENT WAS GIVEN WAS NOT A RECOGNISED HOSPITAL. THE HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITIONS BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STRAIGHTAWAY REJECT THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND OF NON-RECOGNITION OF THE HOSPITAL WITHOUT EXAMINING EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE ON MERITS AS TO ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE RULES. THE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO EXAMINE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM. THIS WAS DIRECTED TO BE DONE WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. OUR ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE A MEMO DATED 14-10-2003 INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID GROUP OF WRIT PETITIONS AND LAYING DOWN THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH SUCH CASES HAD TO BE EXAMINED. 4. THIS WAS DIRECTED TO BE DONE WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. OUR ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE A MEMO DATED 14-10-2003 INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID GROUP OF WRIT PETITIONS AND LAYING DOWN THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH SUCH CASES HAD TO BE EXAMINED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL NEEDS INTERFERENCE AND THE APPELLANTS CLAIM TO MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE POLICY B INDICATED IN MEMO NO. 2/668/2003-JHBHI DATED 14-10-2003. 5. IN THE RESULT, WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT. WE DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROCESS THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE POLICY ENUNCIATED IN THE AFORESAID MEMO DATED 14-10-2003 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION THEREUPON. 6. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 7. NO COSTS.