JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner stood retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.3.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner has been a member of the Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Fund. Under emergent circumstances, the petitioner had to undergo open heart surgery including replacement of aortic valve on 9.8.1999 at Escorts Heart Institute & Research Center, New Delhi. The medical reimbursement has been denied to the petitioner mainly on the ground of non-renewal of medical diary and further, as per reply filed on behalf of respondents, the petitioner had received the treatment at a hospital outside the State without proper recommendation of the Medical Board. The stand taken by the respondents appears to be absolutely vague, evasive and hyper-technical. Once an employee having contributing to the Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Fund throughout his service tenure, there is no justification, whatsoever, to deny him medical treatment and reimbursement only on the ground of non-renewal of medical diary. The renewal of medical diary every year on payment of fee and even payment of one-time fee appears to be wholly unjustified and superfluous. Once the employee becomes member of Medical Fund, he is entitled for medical treatment and reimbursement throughout his life. A legal presumption has to be drawn until and unless, otherwise, proved by the authorities that an employee has received the medical treatment and reimbursement only during his lifetime. 2. Be that as it may, time and again this court has expressed its anxiety and concern in such matters of medical reimbursement. Even serious observations have been made by this court on the provisions of the Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme in the case of Uma Shankar Srivastava v. State of Raj. & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5083/03 decided on 6.1.2006 . Further observations in regard to requirement of recommendation by the Medical Board in getting treatment only in a Government hospital have also been made in the case of Himmat Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors., 2005 (2) WLC (Raj.) 268 . It has been categorically stated by the petitioner that there was no facility for open heart surgery at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, in the year 1999. Certain instances have also been quoted by the counsel for the petitioner wherein the State Government has been allowing officers and the Members of the Legislative Assembly to get treatment even outside the country, payment of which has been made from the State exchequer. Certain instances have also been quoted by the counsel for the petitioner wherein the State Government has been allowing officers and the Members of the Legislative Assembly to get treatment even outside the country, payment of which has been made from the State exchequer. 3. Having considered entire facts and circumstances and further, in view of observations made by this court in the judgments, referred above, in my opinion, the stand taken by the respondents in the present case is wholly unjustified and arbitrary. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to reimburse the entire amount of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner in the present case as per bills submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner may file an affidavit in regard to genuineness of the bills, so submitted by him, and also submit an undertaking to the extent that he will refund the amount in case the bills, so submitted by him, are found forged. The payment be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondents are further directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- also to the petitioner along with the payment, as ordered above.Writ petition allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. *******