JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner retired as Headmaster of a school on 28.2.82. He started living at Surat and Mumbai as his sons were living at Surat and Mumbai. At Mumbai, he suffered Introchantric fracture-fracture of neck of femur in right hip and he was admitted to the hospital at Mumbai where he remained indoor patient for 17 days and then was operated upon. He had to incur expenditure of Rs.1,33,521/-. The petitioner submitted his bill for reimbursement as the petitioner was entitled to medical reimbursement as retired Government employee and pensioner. The respondents denied said payment but offered lumpsum Rs.10,000/- which according to the respondents could have been the expenses if the petitioner would have got the treatment from the hospital at Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was of the age of 82 years at that time when he suffered fracture at Mumbai could not have been brought to Rajasthan and particularly at Jaipur for treatment looking to his age and nature of injuries which he suffered. Then he had no option but to take treatment in Mumbai Hospital. It is submitted that the petitioner was operated in the hospital which is in the approved list of hospitals from where treatment can be taken by the Government servants. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 5. The petitioner who was of the age of 82 years and if he has suffered fracture at Mumbai and got the treatment in Mumbai Hospital, then it was not expected from the petitioner to travel all the way from Mumbai to Rajasthan for his treatment and to know whether the petitioner will be able to get the complete treatment in Rajasthan or not and then would have sought permission of the doctor from Rajasthan to go back to Mumbai. 6. Be it as it may be, in number of judgments, this Court has already held that in emergent situation, if treatment is taken from the hospital outside Rajasthan then that amount is required to be reimbursed. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Shanker Lal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Shanker Lal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2000(3) WLC (Raj.) 585 and several other judgments of this Court. 7. In the light of the above judgments, this writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses to the petitioner of Rs.1,33,521/- within a period of one month from today.Writ Petition Allowed. *******