Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ petition is broughtforth seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order dated 24.12.2008 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to reimburse a sum of Rs.24,471/- for the surgery undergone by the petitioner at M/s. Hindu Mission Hospital, Tambaram, Chennai- 600 045 on 10.07.2007. 2. The gist of the case of the petitioner is that she joined as a Stenographer in the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 22.06.1990 and she was transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai in the year 1991. Thereafter, she was promoted as Personal Assistant to one of the Honourable Judges of this Court and serving in the Institution from 21.12.2001 onwards. While she was working as such, she suffered from severe abdomen pain and bleeding right from the month of January, 2007. After having consultation with a Gynecologist, who was attached to the Hindu Mission Hospital, Tambaram, Chennai, she was taking the medicines prescribed by the Doctor. Thereafter, in the last week of January, 2007, since she developed severe pain in abdomen and continuous bleeding and unable to bear the same, she consulted the Doctor. She was advised to undergo surgery for TAH & BSA (viz., Trans Abdominal Hysterectomy with Bilateral Salphingo Ooperectomy) immediately. Accordingly on 9.7.2007 at 10.40 a.m, she was admitted in the Hindu Mission Hospital and underwent operation. She was discharged from the hospital on 14.7.2007. She was advised to take complete rest for two months. She had spent a sum of Rs.28,772.22 for the said operation and for the other treatment taken by her from 9.7.2007 to 14.7.2007. She is entitled for the amount which was spent by her under "Health Fund Scheme". She sent representation dated 20.08.2007 for reimbursement to the second respondent, which was forwarded to the first respondent on 1.9.2007. Without considering the fact that "Health Fund Scheme" covers for reimbursement, the first respondent rejected her request on 10.11.2008. The reasons adduced for rejecting her claim are that as per the Government Order dated 17.6.1980, (i) it was not an emergent case, (ii) as facilities are available in I.O.G. and Government Hospital for Women and Children, Chennai and (ii) treatment/surgery – major one and not a specialized one. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition. 3. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is an admitted position that she had undergone surgery and she comes under the "Health Fund Scheme". While the matter stood thus, there was no reason for denying her claim pointing to the Government order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that she was having pain and bleeding constantly and she was advised by the Gynecologist to undergo treatment and surgery, hence, she underwent surgery. Therefore, the reason for rejection that the operation is major one and not a specialized one is not correct. Since her health condition was so deteriorating, she underwent operation. Therefore, the rejection of the representation, denying the claim was not correct. 5. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where it has got to be ordered and the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the claim made by the petitioner has got to be set aside. 6. The Court is able to see that she underwent surgery since there was emergency to do so. During the relevant time, she had severe abdomen pain and bleeding which would affect not only her health but would affect her life too. Under such circumstances, it necessitated for surgery and it cannot be stated that it is not an emergent one. It was only on emergent situation, she had undergone the surgery. These facts should have been considered by the first respondent/State for granting the amount which was a sum of Rs.24,471/- spent under the Health Fund Scheme. On both grounds, it cannot be stated that the government order cannot be applied. It also comes under the Health Fund Scheme. The case of the petitioner should have been considered by the State sympathetically but it has not done so. Under such circumstances, the Court feels that it is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.24,471/-from the first respondent for the surgery undergone by her. 7. Accordingly, the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.12.2008 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to reimburse a sum of Rs.24,471/- to the petitioner within a period of two months here from. 7. Accordingly, the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.12.2008 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to reimburse a sum of Rs.24,471/- to the petitioner within a period of two months here from. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.