Judgment :- By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, even at the admission stage. 2. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to sanction the medical reimbursement of Rs. 27,798.65 to the petitioner with interest from the date of discharge. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as an Administrative Officer in the Office of Joint Director of Health Services, Vellore on 29.09.1964 and on attainment of superannuation, he was retired on 31.03.2001. The petitioner’s husband is a member of the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme and making regular contribution to the said scheme. After retirement, the petitioner’s husband became sick and he was admitted in Christian Medical college Hospital, vellore on 14.02.2007 for Chronic Kidney Disease Stage IV. Since his health condition got deteriorated the Doctors advised the petitioner’s husband to undergo treatment in the same hospital for a major health problem. He incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.27,798.65 and he claimed medical reimbursement from the Tamil Nadu Government Pensioner’s Health Fund Scheme by representation dated 13.04.2007. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband made a representation to the third respondent by claiming medical reimbursement on 24.05.2007 and the third respondent also recommended and forwarded the same to the second respondent by letter dated 25.05.2007. However, by the impugned order dated 27.06.2007, the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the hospital in which the petitioner underwent surgery is not found in the list of approved hospitals furnished by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s husband again suffered kidney problems and died on 22.07.2007. Since the petitioner is unable to meet the expenses, she has filed the present writ petition with the above prayer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the similar issues have already been decided by this Court, in various Judgments as well the Judgments of the Supreme Court and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. Since the petitioner is unable to meet the expenses, she has filed the present writ petition with the above prayer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the similar issues have already been decided by this Court, in various Judgments as well the Judgments of the Supreme Court and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents are not justified in taking a different stand in this case as this Court has passed several similar orders directing the respondents in the respective cases to reimburse the medical expenses, without reference to the hospital, in which the respective petitioners took treatment and without reference to the mode of treatment taken. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that since the hospital, in which the petitioner took treatment, is not included in the Government Orders, petitioner is not entitled to get medical reimbursement. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner is regularly contributing to the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme. Similarly, the treatment taken by the petitioner is also not disputed. The only controversy is that the hospital, in which the petitioner took treatment, is not include in the Government Orders. 9. Similar issue, with regard to the treatment taken in the unlisted hospitals, mode of treatment not included in the Government Orders and belated applications submitted and whether the same are to be considered or not, came up for consideration before this Court in the following Judgments passed by me as well as by other Learned Judges:- (a) K. Subramanian v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 267 ; (b) C. Nagamuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 747 ; (c) G. Elavazhagan v. commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 627 ; (d) E. Ramalingam v. Director of Collegiate Education reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 641 [D.Murugesan, J]; (e) K. Balaswami v. Director of Pension reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 385 [P. Jothimani, J]; (f) K. Mani v Secy to Govt, Health & Family Welfare Dept. reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 34 [P. Jothimani, J]; (g) K. Sundararaj v. Mgmt. reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 34 [P. Jothimani, J]; (g) K. Sundararaj v. Mgmt. of T.N.S.T. Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, reported in 2006 4 MLJ 1183 [P. Jothimani, J]; and (h) Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.280 of 2005, dated 04.07.2005. 10. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to health as Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the decision in State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1225 and again in the case of Paschin Banga Khat Mazdoor Samity and others v. State of W.B. and another reported in AIR 1996 SC 2426 . 11. In yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 562 (Suman Rakheja v. State of Haryana), the husband of the petitioner who had developed paralytic stroke on the left side of the body due to blood clotting on the right side of the brain, was admitted in an emergency condition in a private hospital. The Supreme Court, taking note of the emergency nature of the treatment, granted medical reimbursement to the petitioner therein. 12. In the light of the above referred decisions of this Court as well as the Judgments of the Supreme Court, I hold that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is unsustainable, and therefore, the same is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction the permissible amount as claimed by the petitioner, without reference to the objections raised. The payment shall be made by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.