JUDGMENT 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay of 11 days in filing the Special Appeal is condoned. 2. This intra court appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. No. 1695/2008 3. The wife of petitioner-respondent suffered from the disease i.e. metabolic disorder and acute renal failure, for which, treatment was not available in the State of Rajasthan. Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that a Government servant and the members of his family suffering from a disease for which treatment is not available in any Government hospital in the State shall be entitled to medical attendance and treatment to the extent indicated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules. The Bombay Hospital, Mumbai is a hospital enlisted in Appendix 11. The petitioner-respondent, Professor in the Department of Medicine, Ravindranath Taigore Medical College, Udaipur claimed reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 2,91,417.92 against the expenses incurred in the treatment of his wife at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, but out of that only a sum of Rs. 92,000/- was reimbursed to him and not the whole amount, hence, the writ petition was preferred. 4. The wife of the employee suffered with metabolic disorder and acute renal failure and she was referred to avail necessary medical attendance and treatment at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai. Necessary recommendation was made on 4.5.2002 and by acting upon that the Principal and Controller under an office order dated 4.5.2002 certified that the disease suffered by Smt. Snehaprabha is not having any treatment in medicine department and the medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan. He further certified that for recovery of the patient, specialised treatment/investigation at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai is absolutely essential. In the circumstances referred above, Smt. Snehaprabha availed treatment of Hypothyroidism-obesity-Metabolic Disorder and acute renal failure at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai in the month of May, 2002, However, while availing treatment at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai she suffered with Subclavian Artery Thrombosis, an accepted rare complication of cannulation for haemodialysis, a life threatening critical condition that warranted immediate intervention. Accordingly, as a rescue measure an emergency cardio-vascular interventional surgery i.e. complicated embolectomy with subclavian artery stent placement was performed at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai. Accordingly, as a rescue measure an emergency cardio-vascular interventional surgery i.e. complicated embolectomy with subclavian artery stent placement was performed at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai. The fact about treatment availed by Smt. Snehaprabha was confirmed by a medical board consisting of three Professors of the RNT Medical College, Udaipur and it was opined that the treatment and emergency surgery performed at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai was extremely necessary for saving the life of the patient. 5. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Medical & Health Services, Jaipur sought certain clarifications from the Principal and Controller, RNT Medical College, Udaipur. The explanation was submitted by the Principal on the recommendation of the Medical Board inspite of that sum of Rs. 92000/- was ordered to be paid. 6. The Single Bench relying upon Rule 7(2) (1) of the Rules considered the fact that the hospital in which the treatment was obtained was recognised one and wife of the petitioner respondent was referred to that hospital. Thus, for the emergency treatment which had to be imparted, the employee is entitled for reimbursement in view of Rule 7 of the Rules. Aggrieved by the order the intra court appeal has been preferred. 7. We have heard learned Dy. Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 8. We are of the opinion that once the wife of the employee was referred for obtaining the treatment to the hospital at Mumbai and she required some other surgical intervention due to the emergency at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, then the employee is entitled for reimbursement in view of the Rule 7 of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the Bombay Hospital, Mumbai is in the approved list of hospitals where she was permitted to obtain the treatment. 9. Resultantly, this intra court appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******