Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the orders as contained in annexures-10 and 11 dated 6.12.1999 and 24.1.2000 respectively whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit the advance medical reimbursement taken by him. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner since needed specialised treatment outside the State, he applied for medical reimbursement. His application was considered by the State authorities and after relaxing rule 26 of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules allowed him reimbursement of Rs. 78,000/-, vide order as contained in annexures-1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner, thereafter was admitted in All India institute of Medical Science in New Delhi (AIIMS) where the doctor advised him for operation after some time and accordingly he was operated on 17.2.1999, but he superannuated with effect from 30th November, 1998. On superannuation of the petitioner the respondents issued orders as contained in annexures- 10 and 11 for deposit of advance of the medical reimbursement taken by the petitioner for his treatment. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the advance was allowed on 18.9.1998 and within a short interval thereafter the petitioner was operated upon, but in the meantime he superannuated. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire amount taken in advance was spent towards the medical bills, duly certified by the medical authorities and he accordingly submitted some of the bills much before his retirement and some of them after his retirement. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the advance medical reimbursement was utilised after retirement of the petitioner, he would not be entitled to do so and, therefore, he was called upon to deposit the unutilised amount except 7000/- for which medical bills were submitted before the authority concerned. 5. From annexure-1 it appears that advance medical reimbursement was allowed to the petitioner after relaxing rule 26 of the Rules and thus the authorities were fully aware that the petitioner was going to superannuate within two months of the advance. 6. Since Rule 26 was relaxed and in fact the petitioner utilised the advance taken towards his operation, in my opinion, orders impugned must be held to be arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. 7. 6. Since Rule 26 was relaxed and in fact the petitioner utilised the advance taken towards his operation, in my opinion, orders impugned must be held to be arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. 7. Learned State counsel is not disputing the fact that the entire advance amount taken by the petitioner was spent towards his treatment. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aftermentioned, this writ application is allowed. Orders impugned dated 6.12.1999 and 24.1.2000 as contained in annexures- 10 and 11 respectively are set aside.