Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 10th February, 2011, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, allowed the Original Application filed by the applicant-respondent no.2 Shambhu Prakash Sharma and directed the non-applicant-petitioner to calculate the admissible amount of reimbursement and reimburse the same to the applicant-respondent no.2, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The facts, leading to the instant writ petition, succinctly run as under:- That the applicant-respondent no.2 Shambhu Prakash Sharma was initially appointed as Up-Vaidya in the Ayurveda Department of Government of Rajasthan on 18th July, 1956. On the establishment of National Institute of Ayurveda (hereinafter referred in short as 'Institute'), the services of the applicant-respondent no.2 were permanently transferred and he was absorbed as UDC with the above Institute w.e.f. 1st January, 1979. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the services on 31st March, 1994, from the post of Office Assistant. It is also revealed that the wife of applicant-respondent no.2 Smt. Shakuntala Devi Sharma fell ill and underwent an open heart surgery in Tongiya Heart & General Hospital, Jaipur, in an emergent situation and remained hospitalized w.e.f. 11th December, 2007 to 31st December, 2007. The applicant-respondent no.2, as a pensioner, submitted a medical bill amounting to Rs. 2,24,487/- for reimbursement to the Institute on 19th March, 2008 along with the application in a prescribed format with the details of expenditure and the medical bills. The applicant-respondent no.2 was not given any response by the Institute. Thereafter, he made his personal appearance to the concerned Authority and beseeched to reimburse medical bills of Rs. 2,24,487/-, but he was orally informed that the pensioners of the Institute were not entitled for any medical care or reimbursement. The applicant-respondent no.2 quoted an example of one late Shri L.N. Sharma, Ex-Director of the Institute, who was reimbursed the medical bills incurred by him after his retirement by the petitioner-Institute, but the applicant-respondent no.2 was not given any heed to it. Aggrieved with the conduct of the concerned Authority of the Institute, he preferred a writ petition in the High Court, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for adjudication. Aggrieved with the conduct of the concerned Authority of the Institute, he preferred a writ petition in the High Court, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for adjudication. Dissatisfied with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner-Institute has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of filing the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that agreement, having taken place between the Government of Rajasthan, Central Government and the National Institute of Ayurveda, was not applicable to the case of the applicant-respondent no.2, as he was absorbed in the services of Institute on 1st January, 1979. Apart this, there was no provision in the said agreement regarding medical facilities after retirement. Learned counsel further canvassed that the services of the employees of the Institute were governed by the Service Rules and the Bye-laws and where the services and bye-laws were silent, the rules of Government of India were applicable mutatis mutandis. Therefore, neither terms of agreement were applicable to the applicant-respondent no.2 nor the existing rules permitted the medical bills to be reimbursed to the pensioner respondent no.2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court has allowed the applicant-respondent no.2's application and directed the petitioner Institute to reimburse the admissible amount of medical bills, within the stipulated period, whereas the rules and bye-laws do not allow the same. Learned counsel further canvassed so far as the payment made to late Shri L.N. Sharma, Ex-Director of the Institute is concerned, it was in exceptional circumstances, as a special case and while allowing the reimbursement to late Shri L.N. Sharma, it was made clear by the governing body specifically in the minutes that it would not be a precedent in future. The Central Administrative Tribunal, did not attend these peculiar facts and exceptional circumstances and sans assigning any cogent reason, arbitrarily allowed the respondent no.2's application and further allowed the reimbursement of the medical bills to the applicant-respondent no.2, contrary to the rules. Hence, the impugned order, being bad in law, deserves to be set aside. 4. E concerso, the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent no.2 has defended the impugned order and stated the same be just and proper and further contended that it did not warrant any intervention. 5. Hence, the impugned order, being bad in law, deserves to be set aside. 4. E concerso, the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent no.2 has defended the impugned order and stated the same be just and proper and further contended that it did not warrant any intervention. 5. Albeit, the learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, and endeavoured to insist upon that these rules were not applicable to the retired Government Officials, but, he utterly failed to convince us, as to why the medical bills of late Shri L.N. Sharma, Ex-Director of the Institute were reimbursed, when the existing Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules were not applicable to the retired Government Officials. Needless to say that in old age, circumstances with the pensioner and his family, are always peculiar and emergent and the pensioner and his wife become the victim of such dangerous fatal diseases like that of cardiac problems, renal failure and carcinoma etc., at the advanced age only. Hence, if one pensioner can be allowed to meet out the medical facility and his medical bills can be reimbursed in peculiar circumstances, then why can the other pensioner in similar circumstances not be allowed to avail those very facilities, who is similarly situated. 6. The Central Administrative Tribunal, relied upon the judgment of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in OAS 362 and 363/2003, decided on 28th January, 2004 by a common judgment, which settled the question of reimbursement of medical expenses to pensioners. 7. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court delivered a judgment on 30th September, 2002 in the case of Union of India vs. S.Y. Ganpule in Special Civil Application No. 9704/2002, wherein the facts of the case were similar to that of the instant case and the wife of respondent in that case was suffering from ailment of leakage of heart valve and had to be shifted to the Institute of Cardiology and Research Institute, Ahmedabad in October, 1998. In that case, the pensioner was not drawing any medical allowance under any scheme. In that case also, the same contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there were no rules for the pensioners and that the said Rules applied only to the employees during the tenure of their service and, therefore, pensioners could not claim reimbursement of medical bills. In that case also, the same contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there were no rules for the pensioners and that the said Rules applied only to the employees during the tenure of their service and, therefore, pensioners could not claim reimbursement of medical bills. The Gujarat High Court held that such a contention was totally misconceived and held thus:- “Eventhough the said Rules applied to the employees and there were no statutory Rules applicable to the pensioners, and it is by virtue of the said administrative orders that the pensioners became entitled to the benefits similar to those which the employees were given under the statutory Rules. The pensioners who were not covered by the statutory Rules were now sought to be covered by the administrative instructions extending the benefit of the Rules applicable to the employees for medical reimbursement to the pensioners.” 8. The Central Administrative Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, while placing reliance on the above judgment of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, held that the ratio laid down in that case was clearly applicable in the case of the applicant-respondent no.2. The learned Tribunal, further held that when the petitioner-Institute had already allowed the reimbursement of medical expenses to its Ex-Director, the Institute should have taken a similar view in the case of the applicant-respondent no.2 also. The learned Tribunal observed that if the Institute could allow the medical reimbursement in one case, they could not, later on, take a plea that it would not be precedent in future. Such a plea of the Institute, in this respect, undeniably seems to be ridiculous, which does not appeal to any reason. The learned Tribunal is found to have rightly allowed the reimbursement of the medical bills to the applicant-respondent no.2. The impugned judgment is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity and thus, the same warrants no intervention. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai V. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 held as under: “(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another ( AIR 1975 SC 1297 ), held the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim ( AIR 1984 SC 38 ), held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 12. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a reserved and exceptional power for judicial intervention to be exercised not merely for the grant of relief in any even of the case, but only to be directed for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice. It has been held that the power is unfettered, but subject to high degree of judicial discipline and interference is to be kept at the minimum. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. 14. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.