JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition, seeking to call for the records on the file of the fifth respondent relating to the order in No.Acctt/CEA/580/82/Bn/2010/20897 dated 15.11.2010 rejecting the medical reimbursement claim and the consequential speaking order of the second respondent dated 09.02.2011 and for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,91,100/- towards the payment of medical reimbursement claim along with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the claim till the date of realisation. 2. The petitioner has been working as Constable in Border Security Force. Initially, he was posted at Bangladesh Border. Thereafter, he was transferred to 25 BN BSF at Chhawla, New Delhi in the month of November 2001. He visited his native place i.e. Sirkazhi by applying Earned Leave for 30 days from 06.11.2008 to 05.12.2008. During his stay at his native place, on 01.12.2008, there was a fire accident, in which, his wife was severely injured and the petitioner also sustained injuries. Both of them were immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Sirkazhi. The hospital authorities advised them to get admitted in some other hospital where there would be more facilities to treat the fire accident victims. 3. Accordingly, they were admitted in Kannan Burns Specialty Hospital, Cuddalore, on the same day viz., 01.12.2008 itself. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from the said hospital and his wife was shifted to Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai for further treatment after 34 days of treatment at Kannan Burns Specialty Hospital, Cuddalore. However, the petitioner's wife succumbed to injuries on 05.01.2009 and the petitioner lost his wife. 4. Thereafter, he made an application on 21.03.2009 for reimbursement of the amount of Rs.2,91,100/- duly spent for the treatment of himself and his wife. His application was returned on the ground that there were defects. He resubmitted the same on 30.06.2009, but ultimately it was also rejected by the fifth respondent and the second respondent by orders dated 15.11.2010 and 09.02.011 respectively. The reason assigned in the aforesaid orders is that the petitioner made the claim belatedly after three months. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the orders dated 15.11.2010 of the fifth respondent and 09.02.2011 of the second respondent. 5. The reason assigned in the aforesaid orders is that the petitioner made the claim belatedly after three months. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the orders dated 15.11.2010 of the fifth respondent and 09.02.2011 of the second respondent. 5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, refuting the allegations, wherein it is stated that the petitioner made his application on 21.03.2009 with defects, due to which, the same was returned on 30.06.2009. Since the date of resubmission of application was taken as the crucial date for considering his claim, it was held that he made the application belatedly. Hence, the respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused available material documents on record. 7. The aforesaid narrated facts are not in dispute. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 15.11.2010 by the fifth respondent on the ground that the bill was submitted belatedly. 8. The second respondent passed another order, calling it as the speaking order dated 09.02.2011 on the same lines. 9. It is admitted in more than one place that the petitioner made application on 21.03.2009 and the same was returned for rectification of certain defects. The application was resubmitted on 30.06.2009, which was rejected on the ground that it was submitted belatedly after three months. It is seen that the date of resubmission was taken as the date of submission of application instead of the date of original submission i.e. 21.03.2009. Such a technical view taken by the respondents is very unfortunate. The impugned orders passed by the respondents, besides violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, are arbitrary and whimsical. 10. The petitioner is in the service of the Armed Forces. While he was on leave at his native place, met with fire accident, as a result of which, he lost his wife. The medical treatment was also not helpful and he spent huge money for the treatment of his wife, which ultimately ended in futile. He also suffered burn injuries and he was made to go from pillar to post in view of serious injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his claim within time on 21.03.2009, but the authorities have taken a technical view of the matter and rejected the same on the ground that it was submitted belatedly. 11. He also suffered burn injuries and he was made to go from pillar to post in view of serious injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his claim within time on 21.03.2009, but the authorities have taken a technical view of the matter and rejected the same on the ground that it was submitted belatedly. 11. In my considered view, if the date of original submission of application, namely 21.03.2009, is taken, the application was not submitted belatedly and it was submitted within time only. Moreover, resubmission of application could not be taken as the date of submission of application. Furthermore, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of E.Ramalingam vs. The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-6 and another, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 832 , wherein it was observed as under: "5....In my opinion, in matters like this, the time limit prescribed cannot be strictly construed as the Government Order is only a beneficial executive order in favour of those who are entitled to claim medical reimbursement. Denying such benefit purely on technical ground of delay, in my view, would be denying the very right to which such persons are entitled to claim the benefit of the Government Order. Moreover, I am convinced with the reason adduced by the petitioner for not making the claim in time." 12. It is seen from the record that the respondents have power to condone the delay. In a case of this kind, as held by this Court above, the respondents should be liberal in approaching the matter and should have condoned the delay in making application, even if there is some delay because the petitioner had undergone physical and mental torture due to the fire accident and also he lost his wife. 13. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,91,100/- towards medical reimbursement for the treatment undergone by the petitioner and also his wife within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.