JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. The writ petitioner, who is a Doctor and a member of the Manipur Health Services, Government of Manipur, files this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by him towards his treatment as the respondents declined to reimburse the costs of the medicines prescribed by the Specialist and used for treatment of his ailment, "Ankylosing Spondylitis" only on the ground that the very ailment suffered by the petitioner is not included in the list of the ailments/specialized treatment mentioned in the office Memoranda issued by the Government of Manipur, from time to time, for full reimbursement of the medical expenses. 2. Heard Mr. Hemchandra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Y. Ashang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 3. In spite of having sufficient time and opportunity for filing affidavit in-opposition, the respondents, it appears, opted not to file the affidavit in-opposition, but the learned G.A. appearing for the respondents makes the copy of the parawise comments furnished to him by the respondents under the letter of the Addl. Director (P&F), Government of Manipur being No. P/5/2008-DHS/8037 Imphal the 11th December, 2008, available before this Court for perusal; and it has been placed in the record of this present writ petition and marked as "X/1" for identification. 4. Admitted facts of both the parties, stated in brief, in the present writ petition, are that while the petitioner was working as Medical Officer in-charge in CHC Moreh Hospital, he was referred by the State Medical Board for treatment of his illness, i.e., "Ankylosing Spondylitis" outside the State and the Director of Health Services, Manipur vide Memorandum bearing No. P/4/2006-DHS, Imphal the 27th April, 2006, recommended the petitioner for treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi stating that, "the State Medical Board, Manipur examined on 26.4.2006 Dr. L. Nelson, M.O. CMC Moreh Hospital (Present petitioner) referred by the M.O. in-charge CHC Moreh Hospital Government of Manipur for treatment outside the State, the Board found him suffering from "Ankylosing Spondylitis" and recommended him for treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. Further, he is allowed to travel by air from Imphal to Delhi and back without attendant". L. Nelson, M.O. CMC Moreh Hospital (Present petitioner) referred by the M.O. in-charge CHC Moreh Hospital Government of Manipur for treatment outside the State, the Board found him suffering from "Ankylosing Spondylitis" and recommended him for treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. Further, he is allowed to travel by air from Imphal to Delhi and back without attendant". The State Medical Board, consequent upon the examination of the petitioner on 26.4.2008, issued a certificate that the petitioner has been suffering from back pain off and on for the last five years with the pain increasing since six months and has diagnosed that the petitioner is suffering from "Ankylosing Spondylitis." 5. Following the recommendation of the State Medical Board, the petitioner was admitted to AIIMS Delhi and advised for latest form of treatment. After various tests and examinations of the illness suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner had been advised to have injection, namely, "Inj. Remicade 200 mg in 250 ml of N/S" but the petitioner, mainly because of financial problem, had decided to undergo treatment at RIMS Imphal where facility is available for giving the said prescribed injection to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was treated 'at RIMS for the said disease. The specialist of RIMS, AIIMS and the State Medical Board had unanimously diagnosed that the petitioner was suffering from the illness/disease, i.e., "Ankylosing Spondylitis." As advised by the specialists of the AIIMS and the RIMS, the petitioner had the said injection as well as the other medicines at the RIMS and the total medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner for purchasing the medicines for his treatment administered by the RIMS is R s.1,72,566.85 paise. In support of the expenses incurred by the petitioner for his medical treatment at RIMS, the writ petitioner had annexed copies of the cash memos for purchasing the medicines as well as the certificate dated 7.11.2006 issued by the concerned specialist and countersigned by the Medical Superintendent, RIMS Imphal. For easy reference the said certificate issued by the authority of the RIMS and countersigned by Medical Superintendent dated 7.11.1986 is quoted hereunder: CERTIFICATE-"B" (To be completed in the case of patients who are admitted in the Hospital for treatment) Certificate granted to Mr. Dr. Loitongbam Nelson employed in the Health Services, Government of Manipur. I, Dr. N. Romi Singh hereby certify (a) that the patient was admitted to Hospital on the advice of Dr. Dr. Loitongbam Nelson employed in the Health Services, Government of Manipur. I, Dr. N. Romi Singh hereby certify (a) that the patient was admitted to Hospital on the advice of Dr. Kunjabashi W. (b) that the patient has been under treatment at RIMS Hospital and that the under mentioned medicines prescribed by me in this connection were essential for the recovery/prevention of serious deterioration in the condition of the patient. The medicines are not stocked in the RIMS Hospital for supply to private patients and do not include proprietary preparations for which cheaper substances of equal therapeutic value are available for preparations which are primarily solds, toilets or disinfectants. (e) that the injections administered were/were not for immunizing or prophylactic purposes. (f) that the patient is/was suffering from ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS and is/was under treatment from 21.8.2006 to 19.10.2006. (e) that the X-Ray, lab. Tests etc., for which an expenditure of Rs.1470.00 was incurred were necessary and were undertaken my advice at (P.) Clinics. Sd/- Dr. N. Romi Singh 7.11.2006 Associate Professor Deptt. of Phys. Med. & Rehabilitation Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Imphal COUNTERSIGNED I, certify that the patient has been under treatment at the.... Hospital and that the facilities provided were the minimum which were essential for the patients treatment. 6. The petitioner submitted application dated 7.11.2006 in the prescribed form to the Director of Health Services, Government of Manipur to reimburse the said amount incurred by the petitioner in his medical treatment through the Medical Officer in-charge, Moreh Hospital who forwarded the same vide his letter being No. 11/M.R.(Gaz)M.H.06 dated 8.11.2006 to the Director Health Services, Government of Manipur. The Director Health Services Manipur wrote a letter being No. P/4/92/-DHS (Pt. IV) dated 16th January, 2007 to the Secretary (Health) Government of Manipur for inclusion of the disease, i.e., "Ankylosing Spondylitis" in the classification of various ailments for full reimbursement. Pursuant to the said letter of the Director of Health Services, Government of Manipur dated 16.1.2007, the case of the petitioner was placed before the State Medical Board on 20.10.2007 for examination and after thorough discussion, the Medical Board was of the opinion that the ailment, i.e., Ankylosing Spondylitis, may be included in the list of ailments to restore full medical reimbursement under Finance Department (PIC-I/D) Memo dated 17.2.2002 and 17.9.2003. 7. 7. The under secretary (Health) Government of Manipur under his letter dated 13.4.2007 directed the Director of Health Services, Government of Manipur to request the State Medical Board to review its opinion regarding the treatment of the petitioner for his illness, i.e., Ankylosing Spondylitis, as the amount incurred in the treatment by the petitioner is a sizeable amount and inclusion in the list of ailments permissible for full reimbursement would cause loss to the State's exchequer. 8. In the case of one Government employee, namely, Smt. O. Sanathoibi Devi, the Government of Manipur issued office Memorandum being No. 6/15/99-PHC (Pt.I)(D) Imphal dated 28.5.2005 for inclusion of the type of illness, i.e., APLASTIC ANAEMIA/HYPOPLASTIC ANAMIA suffered by her in the list of ailments for which the full medical reimbursement could be made in continuation of the office Memoranda of the Government of Manipur of even number dated 17.2.2002 and 17.9.2003. The said office Memorandum dated 28.5.2005 is quoted hereunder: GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY IMPLEMENTATION CELL) OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 28th May, 2008 No. 6/16/99-PIC(Pt.I)(D): In continuation of this Government Office Memoranda of even number, dated 17.2.2002 and 17.9.2003, the Governor of is pleased to restore full Medical Reimbursement in respect of ailment "APLASTIC ANAEMIA/HYPOPLASTIC ANAMIA" on the advice of the State Medical Board with immediate effect, The benefit shall also be extended to those cases/claims, if any, which are pending for settlement on the date of issue of this Office Memorandum; but this shall not cover those cases for which claims have already been settled and paid. Sd/- R.R. Rashmi Commissioner (Finance) Government of Manipur. In the case of the petitioner, the State respondents declined to restore full reimbursement in respect of the illness, "Ankylosing Spondylitis" even though the State Medical Board advised to restore full Medical reimbursement in respect of ailment, "Ankylosing Spondylitis" in continuation of the Office Memoranda dated 17.2.2002 and 17.9.2003. As such it is the case of the petitioner that the discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner in reimbursing the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner in his medical treatment inasmuch as the petitioner and the said Smt. O. Sanathoibi are the employees of the same State, i.e., the State Government of Manipur. 9. The Apex Court in Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. ESI Corporation (1996)2 SCC 682 . 9. The Apex Court in Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. ESI Corporation (1996)2 SCC 682 . observed that: The expression 'life' assured in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure facilities and opportunities to eliminate sickness and physical disability of the workmen. Health of the workman enables him to enjoy the fruits of his labour, to keep him physically fit and mentally alert. Medical facilities, therefore is a fundamental and human right to protect his health. In that case health insurance, while in service or after retirement was held to be a fundamental right and even private industries are enjoined to provide health insurance to the workmen. The Apex Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B. (1996) 4 SCC 37 observed as under: The constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the federal level as well as at the State level. In a welfare State the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centers which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail of those facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty-bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21, (1996) 4 SCC 37 . The Apex Court also observed in Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 286 that Article 21 of the Constitution of India cast the obligation on the State to preserve life, social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment. Para 7 of SCC in Pt. Parmanand Katara (supra) reads as follows: 7. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 286 that Article 21 of the Constitution of India cast the obligation on the State to preserve life, social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment. Para 7 of SCC in Pt. Parmanand Katara (supra) reads as follows: 7. There can be no second opinion that preservation of human life is of paramount importance. That is so on account of the fact that once life if lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man. The patient whether he be an innocent person or be a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment. 10. No doubt, wisdom of the State in making policy decision cannot be judicially scrutinized through court, but it is also equally well settled that the State Government cannot take its policy decision to disown its obligation to provide timely medical treatment to a Government employee in need of such treatment inasmuch as medical facility is a fundamental right and human right to protect his life. The Apex Court in Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 165 observed: 16. In a series of pronouncements during the recent years this Court has culled out from the provisions of Part IV of the constitution these several obligations of the State and called upon it to effectuate them in order that the resultant pictured by the constitution fathers may become a reality. As pointed out by us, maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the society of which the constitution-makers envisaged. Attending to public health, in our opinion, therefore, is of high priority-perhaps the one at the top. 11. The State of Punjab had refused to reimburse the medical expenses incurred in payment of room rent of the hospital while the concerned employee was having medical treatment in that hospital in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Attending to public health, in our opinion, therefore, is of high priority-perhaps the one at the top. 11. The State of Punjab had refused to reimburse the medical expenses incurred in payment of room rent of the hospital while the concerned employee was having medical treatment in that hospital in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) 2 SCC 283 on the ground that as per the resolution/policy of the Government claim for reimbursement of the amount incurred in payment of room rent of the hospital where the Government employees were under treatment cannot be entertained inasmuch as payment of room rent is no the part of the expenses incurred in the medical treatment. The apex Court in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (supra) held that if the Government servant has suffered ailment which requires treatment at a specialized approved hospital on reference whereat Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government servant. Expenditure, thus, incurred requires to be reimbursed by the stated to the employee. Para of the SCC in Mohinder Singh Chawla reads as follows: 4. It is contended for the appellant-State that the Government have taken decision, as a policy in the resolution, dated 25.1.1991 made in the letter No. 7/7/85/5HBV/2498, that the reimbursement of expenses on account of diet, stay of attendant and stay of patient in hotel/hospital will not be allowed. Permission given was subject to the above resolution and, therefore, the High Court was not right in directing the Government to bear the expenses for the stay in the hotel/hospital contrary to para (vii) of the resolution of position that when specialized treatment was not available in the hospitals maintained by the State of Punjab, permission and approval having been given by the Medical Board to the respondent to have the treatment in the approved hospitals and having referred him to the AIIMS for specialized treatment where he was admitted, necessarily, the expenses incurred towards room rent for stay in the hospital as an in-patient are an integral part of the expenses incurred for the said treatment. Take, for instance, a case where an inpatient facility is not available in a specialized hospital and the patient has to stay in a hotel while undergoing the treatment, during the required period, as certified by the doctor, necessarily, the expenses incurred would be an integral part of the expenditure incurred towards treatment. It is now settled law that right to health is integral to the right to life. Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. If the government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment a specialized approved hospital and on reference where at the government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the government servant. Expenditure, thus, incurred requires to be reimbursed by the State to the employee. The High Court was, therefore, right in giving direction to reimburse the expenses incurred towards room rent by the respondent during his stay in the hospital as an impatient. 12. For the above discussion, this Court, in the admitted fact of both the parties, is of the considered view that it is the duty of the State Government of Manipur to bear the expenditure incurred by the petitioner in treatment of his ailment, for which the State Medical Board recommended for treatment and also the State Government, by meting out partial treatment to the petitioner in the given case, cannot refuse to reimburse expenditure incurred by the petitioner for his medical treatment only on the lame excuse that the type of ailment suffered by the petitioner is not included in the list of ailments/illness mentioned in the Office Memoranda issued from time to time for full medical reimbursement. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reimburse the admitted amount/expenditure incurred by the petitioner, i.e., Rs.1,72,566.85 paise, in his medical treatment to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of failure to reimburse the said amount within the stipulated period indicated above, there shall be interest @ Rs.14 per annum from the date of delivery of this judgment. 13. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.