ORDER 1. 'We. the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens; Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;' is the Preamble of our prestigious Constitution which governs the entire Country, the citizens and also their fundamental rights. Right to livelihood and life is an integral facet of right to life. Nobody could question and deny the enjoyment of this fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India defines the State which reads thus : "Definition -- In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India." 2. Respondent No.1 is a State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and if that is the position, respondent No. 1 is duty bound to take care of life of the citizen specially when the said citizen is an officer in its company. Article 21 of the Constitution of India speaks about protection of life and personal liberty. The State like respondent No.1 would definitely not allow a citizen of India who is serving in its establishment on the post of Dy. Manager like petitioner and would definitely take care of life of its employee and if respondent No.1 would fail to take care of life of its employee like petitioner, it would amount to throttling of preamble of the Constitution as well as aim, object and scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Undisputedly, at the relevant point of time, in between December 1991 to 1993, the petitioner was serving on the post of Dy. Manager (Law). He became seriously ill and was referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore (T.N.). In that regard Annexure P-1 may be taken into consideration. The expert of the said Medical College at Vellore Dr. 3. Undisputedly, at the relevant point of time, in between December 1991 to 1993, the petitioner was serving on the post of Dy. Manager (Law). He became seriously ill and was referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore (T.N.). In that regard Annexure P-1 may be taken into consideration. The expert of the said Medical College at Vellore Dr. M.S. Chandy raised his hands since he was unable to perform the operation of the petitioner and, according to his advice, the only doctor in the universe who could treat the petitioner was Dr. Laligam N. Shekhar who was serving at Pitsburgh in USA. Accordingly, on January 13, 1992, Dr. Chandy referred the petitioner to Dr. Laligam N. Shekhar in USA for treatment of right middle cranial fossa. The doctor also expressed the possibility of Trigerminal Schwannoma. The doctor also opined that angiogram has been ruled out on aneurysm. Dr. Sriramchandra wrote letter to Dr. Laligam Sekhar on behalf of Dr. Chandy. Mr. A.K. Dey, Asstt. Manager (Administration) of respondent No. 1 has written note-sheet in regard to the physical condition of the petitioner mentioning that Dr. Chandy at Christian Medical College and Hospital is saying that the disease is of such a nature that it cannot be fully treated in India so they (the doctors) planned to send him to USA for treatment. It is further written in the note-sheet that the petitioner has requested the management to grant approval for treatment at USA. It has been further mentioned in the note-sheet by said Mr. Dey that since the brain tumor case of the petitioner is not treated at Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, the petitioner left the said Medical College on 13.1.1992 and proceeded to Bangalore on his way to USA for his treatment. In the note-sheet it has been mentioned that the petitioner has requested Mr. Dey to inform the matter to the management for granting permission and sanction of leave etc. 4. On 10th May, 1992 the petitioner submitted an application addressed to Senior Dy. General Manager through CMO. In regard to approval for reimbursement of medical expenditure in connection with brain surgery and on this application, the Assistant Chief Medical Officer of respondent No. 1 made a note that the patient Mr. 4. On 10th May, 1992 the petitioner submitted an application addressed to Senior Dy. General Manager through CMO. In regard to approval for reimbursement of medical expenditure in connection with brain surgery and on this application, the Assistant Chief Medical Officer of respondent No. 1 made a note that the patient Mr. Kaul was sent to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, as a case of Space Occupying Lesion in the right middle cranial fossa for further investigation and treatment, where further investigation suspected it to be a Trigerminal Schwannoma and was referred to Dr. Shekhar, Neurosurgeon in USA. As per the enclosed letters which were annexed as Annexures A and B by the Assistant Chief Medical Officer, it was mentioned that the petitioner was further investigated in USA where the following diagnose was revealed : Post Operative Diagnose - 'RT.Intra-cavernous haemangioma of the cavernous type' right middle cerebral artery embolic occulusion'. The Assistant Chief Medical Officer further mentioned that in fact the condition is of the rarest nature, it would not have been possible to treat it in Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, or any other institution of India. The doctor further mentioned that such tumors are fast growing and of emergency in nature because of high risk involved in surgery. Further, the complication with embolic occulusion of right middle cerebral artery was to be dealt with bypass graft. The Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore; referred the case of the petitioner to USA where the petitioner was required to be treated effectively, as well as to deal with the complication arising out of surgery, to save life of the patient. The Assistant Chief Medical Officer annexed the letters of Dr. Shekhar of USA and mentioned that the said letter of Dr. Shekhar is self-explanatory. Further it has been mentioned that the case was treated successfully in USA. 5. In USA Dr. Laligam N. Shekhar, on examining the petitioner, found that he is suffering from the disease 'right intra-cavernous haemangioma, of the cavernous type' /'right middle cerebral artery embolic occulution'. Doctor Laligam found it to be a unique and challenging case in the medical history, as this finds place in the letter of the said doctor dated February 14, 1992 addressed to Dr. Paul Croissant, MD. Doctor Laligam found it to be a unique and challenging case in the medical history, as this finds place in the letter of the said doctor dated February 14, 1992 addressed to Dr. Paul Croissant, MD. It would be relevant to quote that portion which the doctor mentioned in the said letter which reads thus : "This was an interesting case but became especially challenging because of the latrogenic complication. I am glad we were able to successfully overcome this problem. Incidentally, I do not believe vein grant reconstruction of the middle cerebral artery has been previously performed or reported at least. We made a video tape of the entire operation including the preoperative interview, etc. and one of our fellows is going to edit it and whenever this is done I will send you, Don Ross and S.MJ. Chandy a copy." 6. Not only this, the said doctor when came to India he faced interview which was published in Indian Express dated 12.12.1992, Bangalore Edition under the Heading of "The Man behind the brains". It would be condign to quote few lines of it which reads thus : "Dr. Laligam and his colleagues gradually transferred the techniques from cadavers to live patients and achieved dramatic results. Patients who had facial muscles paralysed, as the tumors were pressing. against the nerves, quickly regained these functions after surgery. For patients such as Manmohan Kaul, an Agra-based public sector employee whose case had been declared hopeless by Indian neurosurgeons, Dr. Laligam's technique has literally pulled them out from the jaws of death." In the interview Dr. Laligam quoted the example of the petitioner in regard to the said surgical operation. The operation was successful and it was made miracle in medical science and the life of the petitioner was saved. 7. The question now would arise whether the petitioner is entitled for the medical reimbursement or not under the Rules Annexure P-5, namely, National Mineral Development Corporation Employees (Medical Attendant and Treatment) Rules (as adopted by Hindustan Copper Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). On going through Annexure P-1, which is a letter written by Hospital run by respondent No.1, addressed to Prof. On going through Annexure P-1, which is a letter written by Hospital run by respondent No.1, addressed to Prof. and Head of Department of Neurosurgery of Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, it is gathered that respondent No.1 undertook to bear the employees of the Corporation whether on duty or deputation, leave including terminal leave and leave preparatory to retirement or during suspension and include persons appointed on foreign service terms during their service in the Corporation; unless their deputation terms provide for more favourable benefits to them. Thus, the petitioner would come under the ambit and sweep of the scope of the rules. 8. The 'hospital' has also been defined in rule 4(e) which would mean a hospital in the organisation of the company or a Government hospital, or a hospital maintained by a local authority and any other hospital with which arrangements have been made by the company for the treatment of its employees, where a company hospital does not exist. The term 'Medical Attendance' has also been defined in the rule 4(f) and the case of petitioner would come under clause (ii). There is an explanation No. (ii) which reads thus: "(ii) Pathological, bacteriological, radiological or other methods of examination for the purpose of diagnosis should be carried out only in a company hospital or laboratory. Where no such company hospital or laboratory exists, the examination should be carried out at the nearest Government hospital, where such facilities exists, otherwise at any other hospital or laboratory as recommended by the authorised medical attendant." [Emphasis supplied] 9. It is no more in dispute that the Christian Medical College and Hospital at Vellore referred the petitioner to USA and, therefore, the petitioner who was treated in USA would come under the ambit and sweep of clause (ii) of the explanation. The term 'Treatment' has also been defined under the said Rules which reads thus: " 'Treatment' means the use of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which an employee is treated or at the dispensary or the consulting room of the authorised medical attendant." 10. The term 'Treatment' has also been defined under the said Rules which reads thus: " 'Treatment' means the use of all medical and surgical facilities available at the hospital in which an employee is treated or at the dispensary or the consulting room of the authorised medical attendant." 10. Thus, since the unique and challenging case in the medical science was detected in universe and the petitioner was successfully operated by Indian doctor in USA and respondent No.1 is a State, therefore, respondent No.1 is bound to achieve the aim and object of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in order to save the life of the petitioner and, therefore, the Chairman of respondent No.1 should exercise its power conferred to it by rules 5 and 11(ii) of the said Rules by fulfilling and following the mandate and Preamble of the Constitution of India. 11. Right to life, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India means something more than survival or animal existence and would include the right to live with himan dignity. It would also include all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living. That which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to live. There is an obligation upon the State like respondent No.1 to preserve the life of its employees by providing immediate medical aid to his every employee. A right to health and medical care is fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41 and 43 of the Constitution of India and makes the life of an employee meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. In that regard I may profitably rely the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre and others v. Union of India and others [(1994)3 SCC 42]. 12. In the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others [ (1996)2 SCC 336 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that self-preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. 12. In the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others [ (1996)2 SCC 336 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that self-preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. In this case the Supreme Court held that Government employee had the right to take steps in self-preservation and it was further held that he did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board. The employee also did not have to stand in queue in the Government Hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital. The Supreme Court found that the State has brought Escorts on the recognised list, but instead the employee getting operated in the Escorts, had undergone the operation in London incurring expenses. The apex Court in that situation held that the doctors causing his operation there are presumed to have done so as one essential and timely. On that hypothesis, the Supreme Court held and directed that it is fair and just that the respondents pay to the appellant-employee the rates admissible as per Escorts Heart Institution, New Delhi. However, in the given case in hand, the best medical facility for the treatment was available in the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore but the doctor raised his hands and immediately referred the petitioner to USA to Dr. Laigam. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for reimbursement and for that I have also directed that the Chairman should exercise its power conferred to it by rules 5 and 11(ii) of the said Rules by fulfilling and following the mandate and preamble of the Constitution of India. 13. This Court hopes and trusts that the medical bills and air tickets of the petitioner and his wife who was escorting him which the petitioner submitted in original, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the company would be reimbursed by the Chairman by exercising powers conferred to it under the above said rules. However, in case the original bills or copies thereof are not available in the record of the company, the petitioner is hereby directed to make the copies available to the respondents. In these facts and circumstances, Annexure P-3 dated 20.3.1993 is hereby quashed. However, in case the original bills or copies thereof are not available in the record of the company, the petitioner is hereby directed to make the copies available to the respondents. In these facts and circumstances, Annexure P-3 dated 20.3.1993 is hereby quashed. Let the decision be taken by the Chairman of respondent No.1 on or before 31.5.2005. 14. The petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.