Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 31st August, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the original application filed by the respondent No. 2, Joseph Zacharia S/o late Sh. Scaria Joseph, who claimed for reimbursement of his medical bill for treatment by him at Saint Stephens Hospital, Delhi. 3. The undisputed facts are that the said respondent, who is employee of petitioner was treated for heart ailment at Udaipur after he suffered heart attack in 1995. While he was under treatment, the Cardiologist of the hospital advised him to undergo angiography. After taking permission from the Principal Kendriya Vidhyalaya No. 1, Udaipur, the applicant went to Delhi to have the angiography done. The petitioner fall sick and he was operated in the Saint Stephens Hospital on 010.1995 for Bypass Surgery. After undergoing the Bypass Surgery, the petitioner submitted his reimbursement claim on 02.01.1996. The claim of the claimant was rejected only on the ground that since the petitioner has not taken the treatment at the nearest hospital he is not entitled for reimbursement. This led to filing of the writ petition before this Court which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, two fold contentions were raised. Firstly; that the reimbursement of medical claim in emergent case is permissible only when the treatment is taken in the nearest hospital and that the Saint Stephens Hospital was not nearest hospital from the place where the applicant was staying in Delhi and, therefore, the medical claim cannot be allowed. It was further contended before the Tribunal that, Saint Stephens Hospital is not the recognised hospital for coronary bypass surgery. The Tribunal was of the opinion that in such emergency where bypass surgery was required, the question that the said hospital was not the nearest to the residence of the applicant was immaterial and the incumbent was entitled for reimbursement of his medical claim. 5. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment. He was treated at Government Hospital, Udaipur wherefrom he was advised to go to Delhi for angiography and further thereafter he fall sick are admitted facts. The fact that the petitioner has undergone bypass surgery and he has been hospitalised are also admitted facts. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment. He was treated at Government Hospital, Udaipur wherefrom he was advised to go to Delhi for angiography and further thereafter he fall sick are admitted facts. The fact that the petitioner has undergone bypass surgery and he has been hospitalised are also admitted facts. The reimbursement can be confined to the charges which are ordinarily charged by the recognised hospital for the same treatment. In that circumstances denial of the claim by the petitioners was not justified and the respondent was entitled to reimbursement of his claim as permissible. 6. Accordingly, the directions to reimbursement of the medical bill with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum cannot be faulted with. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before us that under the rules for bypass surgery only Rs. 64,500/-reimbursement is permissible for the persons whose salary as on the date is less than 2,500/-. However, we are of the opinion that no such question has been raised that in the case of reimbursement, it was in excess of charges claimed for reimbursement for which the petitioner put forward his claim. 8. The claim for total Rs. 1,08,601.65 included the charges of bypass surgery and incidental charges for medicines and investigations and ancillary investigations. 9. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that reimbursement claim of the respondent incumbent of Rs. 1,08,601.65 even taking Rs. 64,000/-to be surgery charges as prescribed rate under the rules, if to these charges, are added the investigation charges, ancillary investigation charges and other medicines bills to which the petitioner is entitled, it cannot be held to be excessive so as to warrant any interference. 10. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.