JUDGEMENT 1. This is yet another case in which respondents have taken a heartless approach in rejecting the medical reimbursement bills of the deceased employee mechanically taking a ground that he had not obtained prior permission before moving outside State for specialized treatment. Therefore, the deceased employee had filed this writ application before this Court for a direction to the respondents to exercise their discretion in terms of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and give post facto sanction to the medical treatment undertaken by him outside the State and reimburse the medical bills. Unfortunately, he died during the pendency of the writ application and has been substituted by his wife, the present petitioner. In this order, reference of petitioner shall be made in respect of the original petitioner. 2. Short facts are that the petitioner was diagnosed of heart ailment some time in February, 2008 by the local doctors. He accordingly applied for medical leave. While he was about to proceed for treatment, he suffered massive heart attack on 8.4.2008. He was immediately rushed to Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, a wing of Patna Medical College and Hospital. On 11.4.2008 he was discharged and later on he was admitted in Heart Hospital, Kankarbagh. The doctors at Heart Hospital found that the petitioner required specialized treatment and therefore they referred him to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AllMS), New Delhi, Petitioner rushed to Delhi, but on account of heavy rush and long queue, he could not be admitted there. Hence he got himself admitted in Apollo Hospital, Delhi, where he underwent bypass surgery. Cost of entire treatment was paid by the petitioner from his own pocket. 3. It is stated that before proceeding- petitioner had applied before the concerned authorities for permission and for release of advance salary. The said request of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 2 vide memo dated 21.4.2008 as contained in Annexure-1. On return from Delhi, petitioner submitted his medical bills for reimbursement vide Annexure-2 series. Some queries were made from the petitioner with regard to his application as he had not obtained prior permission. In view of the query, petitioner re-submitted his bills duly countersigned and certified by the authorities of the concerned Hospitals where he had undergone treatment, copies whereof are Annexure-4 series. Some queries were made from the petitioner with regard to his application as he had not obtained prior permission. In view of the query, petitioner re-submitted his bills duly countersigned and certified by the authorities of the concerned Hospitals where he had undergone treatment, copies whereof are Annexure-4 series. On receipt of the bills, respondent nos. 2 and 3 referred his bills to the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital for verification. The same was accordingly examined by a Committee in the Patna Medical College and Hospital and was certified as correct and was held that the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of an amount of Rs.1,43,500/- and recommendation was made through letter, as contained in Annexure-5, for release of the said amount to the petitioner. 4. While this matter was pending with the respondents, petitioner was diagnosed Cancer in Urinary Bladder in the first week of March, 2010, for which he required specialized operation and he was recommended to go to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Petitioner rushed to Delhi and got admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where he was operated upon and his whole Urinary Bladder and major parts of Small Intestine was removed as the same was found malignant. Since, during this period, petitioner had superannuated, he did not submit any claim in respect of this surgery at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. 5. Medical bills of the petitioner submitted earlier remained pending with the respondents since 2008 itself, although the same had been verified and certified by the authorities of the Medical College. Hence he moved this Court. 6. In the counter affidavit, there, is no denial with regard to urgency, genuineness or requirement of said treatment to the petitioner. Only stand in the counter affidavit is that petitioner had not obtained prior permission before proceeding to Delhi for his treatment. 7. This Court has time and again expressed its anguish in the manner in which without proper application of mind, application of Government employees of lower grades for medical reimbursement of their bills are rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a few judgments of this Court on the matter, which are as follows: 1. 2010(1) PUR 369 : Ran Vijay Kr. Singh V/s. State of Bihar. 2. 2008(2) PLJR 182 : Lal Bahadur Gupta V/s. State of Bihar. 3. 2008(1) PLJR 337 : Md. Ahad Raza V/s. State of Bihar. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a few judgments of this Court on the matter, which are as follows: 1. 2010(1) PUR 369 : Ran Vijay Kr. Singh V/s. State of Bihar. 2. 2008(2) PLJR 182 : Lal Bahadur Gupta V/s. State of Bihar. 3. 2008(1) PLJR 337 : Md. Ahad Raza V/s. State of Bihar. 4. 2008(1) PLJR 394 : Biresh Chandra Chatterji V/s. State of Bihar. 9. Judgments in the aforesaid cases will show that this Court has repeatedly insisted that the discretion available to the respondents under Rule 26 of the Rules must be exercised by them on equitable and humanitarian grounds. It has been made clear that if the ailment and the treatment obtained by the concerned Government employee is found to be essential, urgent and genuine, discretion must be exercised in their favour. It has been noticed that by unnecessarily keeping the bills pending, compelling the Government employees to move this Court where orders are passed for release of the entire admitted amount with interest, burden is put on the public exchequer also as the interest has to be paid from public exchequer without actually fixing responsibility on someone for such delay. This Court need not repeat the observations and concern of the Benches in the judgments passed earlier. 10. The writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to exercise their discretion available to them under Rule 26 of the Rules in favour of the petitioner and release admitted amount of medical expenses of the petitioner (now deceased) as certified by the authorities of the Medical College, alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in favour of the present petitioner, the widow.