Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner has retired from service on 28.02.1990. He was admitted and operated upon in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd., Okhla Road, New Delhi on 28.02.2000. He submitted his medical reimbursement claim for `1,76,528.61/-. The claim was returned to the petitioner with the remarks that there was no provision in the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 for reimbursement after retirement. Petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents on 21.06.2003. Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1193/2004, seeking directions to the respondents for reimbursement of medical claim. The same was withdrawn on 06.07.2007. The petitioner was also informed vide letter, dated 17.08.2004, with the following remarks: “The medical claim of Shri S.K. Sharma, who retired on 28.02.1990, i.e., over 14 years back. He is not CGHS beneficiary as on date. Pensioners are not covered under the CS(MA) Rules, 1944. Further since Shri Sharma is not a CGHS beneficiary, reimbursement of Medical expenses to him under the CGHS rules is not permissible.” 2. Ms. Vidushi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that her client was entitled to reimbursement. 3. Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned vice counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner is not entitled for medical reimbursement since he is not a Central Govt. Health Services beneficiary and his case is also not covered under Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner was operated upon in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd., Okhla Road, New Delhi in the year 2000. He has also submitted medical reimbursement claim on 27.09.2000. The principal stand taken by the respondents in the reply is that since the petitioner was not a beneficiary of C.G.H.S., he was not entitled to reimbursement. Further case of the respondents is that Rule-1 of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 does not apply to retired Government Official. 6. Ms. Vidushi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon B.R. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors. 79(1999) Delhi Law Times 388. In this case, the petitioner was working as Inspector Central Excise and Customs at Karnal under Commissioner of Central Excise, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 6. Ms. Vidushi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon B.R. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors. 79(1999) Delhi Law Times 388. In this case, the petitioner was working as Inspector Central Excise and Customs at Karnal under Commissioner of Central Excise, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. He retired from the Department while posted at Karnal under Superintendent Central Excise, Karnal and Assistant Commissioner, Ambala on 31st May, 1986 after putting in about 41 years of dedicated service. He fell seriously ill and contacted the doctor on 27th October, 1996 at Civil Hospital, Karnal. He was referred to Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre at New Delhi. He underwent by-pass surgery on 11th November, 1996 after preliminary tests were conducted and he remained in Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre as an indoor patient during the period of his treatment. He incurred the medical expenses to the tune of `1,78,850/-. The bill was submitted to Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Sonepat, duly forwarded by Superintendent, Central Excise, Karnal, who forwarded the same on 4th February, 1997. However, the bill was sent back with a direction to send the same to Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ambala. The fact of the matter is that the bill remained pending and he approached the Delhi High Court for the redressal of his grievance. The respondents have filed reply to the petition. The stand of the Government reads as under: “2. According to the instructions contained in letter No. S. 11011/1/95-CGHS(P) dated 13.2.1995 of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, “the reimbursement claims of Central Government pensioners including those of Ex-Members of Parliament retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts and freedom fighters covered under CGHS for the treatment taken in recognized hospitals/Government referral hospitals with prior permission of CGHS i.e. CMO incharge of the dispensary concerned can be settled by the Additional Directors/Deputy Directors of CGHS without referring them to Director, CGHS/Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. 3. The claims relating to treatment taken in recognised hospitals Government referral hospital without prior permission under emergency circumstances or otherwise may be referred to Director, CGHS for ex-post-facto permission/Relaxation of rules before reimbursement. The claims relating to treatment taken in emergency in unrecognized private hospitals/nursing homes/clinics without permission have also be sent to the Director CGHS/Ministry for consideration and decision. 4. The claims relating to treatment taken in emergency in unrecognized private hospitals/nursing homes/clinics without permission have also be sent to the Director CGHS/Ministry for consideration and decision. 4. Since CGHS facilities are not available in Karnal, the petitioner’s case was referred to the Additional Director (CGHS), Central Government Health Scheme, Reimbursement and Hospitalization Section Room No. 8 ‘D’ 510 Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi110001, who returned the claims stating that “CGHS settle only CGHS Card Holder M.R. Claim”. The petitioner is not a card holder since there is no CGHS facility. 5. Hence, it is submitted that, inasmuch as there is no provision under CCS (MA) Rules, 1944 for the reimbursement of the Medical charges for the “PENSIONER” and he is not governed under CGHS Rules, he is not eligible for reimbursement of medical charges, as requested for by the petitioner.” The learned Single Judge has held as under: “13. Admittedly, the Chief Medical Officer of District Civil Hospital at Karnal where the petitioner is settled is an Authorised Medical Attendant where the Government servants or the retired servants have to report for treatment which the petitioner has done in view of the emergent situation. After consulting the Medical Attendant, medical treatment is taken and claim is preferred on an Essentiality Form for reimbursement. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner went to his Authorised Medical Attendant who referred the matter to Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre for by pass surgery at New Delhi. Reference was also made to the Directorate General Health Services, Haryana, Chandigarh who accorded the approval for specialized treatment in Escorts Hospital and reimbursement of the medical charges were directed to be made to the petitioner. IN this view of the matter it cannot be understood as to how the petitioner who is a retired Central Government employee could be deprived of the reimbursement of the medical charges incurred for heart by-pass surgery. It is true that the petitioner did not hold a CGHS card as he presumed that it was not necessary as he was staying in Karnal where no CGHS scheme was operating. The Government, however, felt that if he had registered with CGHS scheme he could atleast, in the case of major ailments/major surgery, come to CGHS station to avail of these facilities and when such a need arose. The Government, however, felt that if he had registered with CGHS scheme he could atleast, in the case of major ailments/major surgery, come to CGHS station to avail of these facilities and when such a need arose. However, in serious cases of ailment and accidents the Rule seems to have been often relaxed as it is imperative for the patient to be taken to nearest private Hospital or authorized Medical Centre for emergent treatment. Next it is quite clear that the Government has already recognized certain hospitals, such as, Escorts Heat Institute & Research Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Indraprastha Appolo Hospital etc. as specialized Hospitals for treatment of its employees vide Memorandum dated September 18,1996. Copy of the same has already been placed on record. Therefore, a retired Government servant is entitled to be treated in Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre for heart ailment or for undergoing by-pass including Coronary By-pass surgery and the expenditure incurred has to be reimbursed. The office memorandum dated September 18,1996 has clearly recognised certain private Hospitals/diagonistic Centres under CGHS for specialized and general purpose treatment and certain ceiling of rates are prescribed therein….” 16. In view of the above, it cannot be understood as to how the Government will decline to pay the actual expenditure incurred for treatment and only will limit the same on the basis of Annexures I and II to Memorandum dated 18th September, 1996 as referred to above. At best it is expected that the recognised private Hospitals/diagnostic Centres will charge as per the rates finalized by the Ministry which in all fairness should not exceed the rates as prescribed by the Government. The Government shall, therefore, take up the matter with the private Hospitals who have been recognised for specialized and general purpose treatment. This question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the full amount as expended for his treatment or is only entitled to the amount as admissible on the basis of Memorandum dated 18th September, 1996 is, therefore, left open as the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not impugned the Memorandum nor has asked for the amount more than the admissible amount as determined by the respondents.” 7. What is evident from the contents of letter, dated 13.02.1995, issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, quoted hereinabove, is that the reimbursement claims of Central Government pensioners including those of Ex-Members of Parliament, retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts and freedom fighters covered under CGHS for treatment taken in recognized hospitals/Government referral hospitals with prior permission of CGHS, i.e., CMO in charge of the dispensary concerned can be settled by the Additional Directors/Deputy Directors of CGHS without referring them to Director, CGHS/Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. In those cases where the claims relating to treatment taken in recognized hospitals Government referral hospital without prior permission under emergency circumstances or otherwise required to be referred to Director, CGHS for ex-post-facto permission/relaxation of rules before reimbursement. In the case of claims relating to treatment taken in emergency in unrecognized private hospitals/nursing homes/clinics without permission were required to be sent to the Director CGHS/Ministry for consideration and decision. 8. In paragraph No. 9 of the judgment, referred to hereinabove, there is reference to the facilities available for retired Government officials, which reads as under: “”FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR RETIRED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. 1. Even though C.G.H.S. facilities are at present available only at specified places and it may not be possible for the Pensioners/Family Pensioners living away from these places to avail of the facilities on day-to-day basis, it may be in the interest of Pensioners/Family Pensioners to enroll themselves as beneficiaries of the C.G.H.S. so that at least in the case of major ailment /major surgery, they will be able to come to the C.G.H.S. station to avail of these facilities if and when such a need should arise. (Authority: Para 1.4 of O.M. No. 22/1/90-P & P.W. (K) dated 17.12.90 of Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, communicated in Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) F. No. 12/165/90-Coord (Circular No. 15/91) dated 21.1.1991) 2. With effect from 1.12.1997 fixed Medical allowance of Rs.100/- p.m. granted to Central Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners residing in areas not covered by G.G.H.S. for meeting expenditure on day-to-day medical expenses that do not require hospitalization. (Authority: O.M. No. 45/57/97-P &PW (K) dated 19.12.97 of Government of India, Department of Pension and Pension Welfare, New Delhi) 3. With effect from 1.12.1997 fixed Medical allowance of Rs.100/- p.m. granted to Central Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners residing in areas not covered by G.G.H.S. for meeting expenditure on day-to-day medical expenses that do not require hospitalization. (Authority: O.M. No. 45/57/97-P &PW (K) dated 19.12.97 of Government of India, Department of Pension and Pension Welfare, New Delhi) 3. Consequent on the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commissionn, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi had stated that there is no objection to the extension of the “Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules” to the Central Government. Pensioners residing in Non-C.G.H.S. areas. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare had been directed to work out the modalities for the implementation of Rules in consultation with the Ministries/Departments prior to the measure being introduced to avoid any hardships to the pensioners. So far no orders have been issued. (Authority: O.M. No. S14025/4/96. MS dated 5.6.98 of Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi). Sd/- (A.B. Kamalesh Kumar) Chief Accounts Officer, Custom & Central Excise” New Delhi.” 9. The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi has also issued office memorandum, dated 18.09.1996. The relevant extract of the same has been quoted in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment, which reads as under: “No. S-11011/16-94-CGHS Desk-II/CMO (D)/CGHS (P) Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health) Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi Dated the 18th Sept., 1996 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Recognition of private hospitals/diagnostic centres under CGHS, Delhi for specialized and general purpose treatment and diagnostic procedures and fixation of ceiling rates-Regarding. The undersigned is directed to say that the issue of recognition of private hospitals for treatment of CGHS beneficiaries under CGHS, Delhi and fixation of ceiling rates has been under consideration of the government for quite some time. It has now been decided to recognize the under mentioned hospitals/diagnostic centres for different specialities (treatment/diagnostic procedures) mentioned against their names: 1. … …… 22 … ….. 23. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre: Cardiology, Cardiothoracic and Vascular surgery. 24. ………………. 2. It has further been decided that the CGHS beneficiaries taking treatment in the above mentioned hospitals with the prior permission of the CGHS/Offices appointed by the Government will be entitled for reimbursement as per the package deal rates given in the Annexures I and II. 23. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre: Cardiology, Cardiothoracic and Vascular surgery. 24. ………………. 2. It has further been decided that the CGHS beneficiaries taking treatment in the above mentioned hospitals with the prior permission of the CGHS/Offices appointed by the Government will be entitled for reimbursement as per the package deal rates given in the Annexures I and II. The rates for indoor treatment mentioned in Annexures I and II are for Semi Private Category. For Private Ward there will be an increase of 15% and for General Ward there will be a decrease of 10%.” 10. The text of DOP & PW O.M. No. 45/57/97-P & OW dated December 19, 1997 reads as under: “The undersigned is directed to state that in pursuance of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission announced in this Department’s resolution No. 45/86/97-P & P.W. (A) dated 30.9.1977, sanction of the President is hereby accorded to the grant of fixed medical allowance @ Rs.100 p.m. to Central Government pensioners/family pensioners/residing in areas not covered by Central Government Health Scheme administered by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and corresponding Health Schemes administered by other Ministries/Departments for their retired employees for meeting expenditure on day-to-day medical expenses that do not require hospitalization.” 11. According to the instructions issued on 17.12.1990, reproduced hereinabove, even though C.G.H.S. facilities were available only at specified places, it could not be possible for the Pensioners/Family Pensioners living away from these places to avail of the facilities on day-to-day basis, but it was in the interest of Pensioners/family Pensioners to enroll themselves as beneficiaries of the C.G.H.S. so that at least in the case of major ailment/major surgery, they could be able to come to the C.G.H.S. station to avail of these facilities if and when such a need should arise. The Government of India has also issued instructions, which have come into force w.e.f. 01.12.1997, vide which w.e.f. 01.12.1997 fixed medical allowance of `100/- per month was granted to Central Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners residing in areas not covered by C.G.H.S. for meeting expenditure on day-to-day medical expenses, which do not require hospitalization. The Government, in principal, has also decided to extension of the “Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules” to the Central Government pensioners residing in Non-C.G.H.S. areas as per the decision, dated 05.06.1998. 12. The Government, in principal, has also decided to extension of the “Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules” to the Central Government pensioners residing in Non-C.G.H.S. areas as per the decision, dated 05.06.1998. 12. Circular No. S-11011/7/91-CGHS (PP) dated 4th August, 1998 with the subject: ‘Extension of CGHS Medical facilities to the employees/pensioners of Para Military Forces-Regarding”, paragraph No. 1 reads as under: “In supersession of this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 17.10.1996 on the subject mentioned above. I am directed to say that it has now been decided to extend CGHS facilities to the pensioners of Central Para Military Forces in Delhi and in other stations covered by CGHS”. It is evident from the contents of paragraph No. 1 that CGHS facilities have been extended to the pensioners of Central Para Military Forces in Delhi and in other stations covered by CGHS. Petitioner has retired from Special Services Bureau, Directorate of Security, Cabinet Security, New Delhi on 28.02.1990. He does not live in a station where CGHS facility is available. 13. Petitioner has gone to Delhi where he developed heart problem and was operated upon in emergency. Initially, the employees/pensioners of Para Military Forces were not entitled to CGHS facilities, but as per the decision, dated 04.08.1998, it has been extended to the pensioners of Central Para Military Forces in Delhi and in other stations covered by CGHS. There is no reason assigned why the pensioners and similarly situate persons have been left out from CGHS facilities. It is a case of invidious discrimination. The CGHS facilities could not be restricted only to the persons serving/residing in Delhi and other stations covered by CGHS. Petitioner is also a retired person and has to be treated at par with those persons, who have retired and are serving in Delhi and other stations covered by CGHS. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the petitioner vis-à-vis similarly situate persons, only on the ground of residence at a particular place. The pensioners constitute a homogeneous class and there cannot be further division of a homogeneous class. The objective of the instructions is to provide better health facilities to the retired pensioners. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the petitioner vis-à-vis similarly situate persons, only on the ground of residence at a particular place. The pensioners constitute a homogeneous class and there cannot be further division of a homogeneous class. The objective of the instructions is to provide better health facilities to the retired pensioners. Thus, the letter, dated 04.08.1998, is required to be read down by including all the pensioners of Central Para Military Forces in letter, dated 04.08.1998, in order to mitigate the hardships faced by them whether living outside Delhi or even in those stations which are not covered under CGHS. 14. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130 have held as under: “15. Thus the fundamental principle is that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 16. As a corollary to this well established proposition, the next question is, on whom the burden lies to affirmatively establish the rational principle on which the classification is founded correlated to the object sought to be achieved? The thrust of Article 14 is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. In the very nature of things the society being composed of unequals a welfare State will have to strive by both executive and legislative action to help the less fortunate in society to ameliorate their condition so that the social and economic inequality in the society may be bridged. This would necessitate a legislation applicable to a group of citizens otherwise unequal and amelioration of whose lot is the object of state affirmative action. In the absence of the doctrine of classification such legislation is likely to flounder on the bed rock of equality enshrined in Article 14. The Court realistically appraising. the social stratification and economic inequality and keeping in view the guidelines on which the State action must move as constitutionally laid down in Part IV of the Constitution, evolved the doctrine of classification. The Court realistically appraising. the social stratification and economic inequality and keeping in view the guidelines on which the State action must move as constitutionally laid down in Part IV of the Constitution, evolved the doctrine of classification. The doctrine was evolved to sustain a legislation or State action designed to help weaker sections of the society or some such segments of the society in need of succour. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The State, therefore, would have to affirmatively satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. It can only be satisfied if the State establishes not only the rational principle on which classification is founded but correlates it to the objects sought to be achieved. This approach is noticed in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCR 1014 at p. 1034 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 at pp. 1637-38) when at page 1034, the Court observed that a discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. 32. Having succinctly focussed our attention on the conspectus of elements and incidents of pension the main question may now be tackled. But, the approach of Court while considering such measure, is of paramount importance. Since the advent of the Constitution, the State action must be directed towards attaining the goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution which, when achieved, would permit us to claim that we have set up a welfare State. Article 38 (1) enjoins the State to strive to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effective as it may a social order in which justice social, economic and political shall inform all institutions of the national life. In particular the State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. In particular the State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Article 39 (d) enjoins a duty to see that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women and this directive should be understood and interpreted in the light of the judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : ( AIR 1982 SC 879 ). Revealing the scope and content of this facet of equality, Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Court observed as under (para 1) : "Now, thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations roused as a consequence and the forward looking posture of this Court, the underprivileged also are clamouring for their rights and are seeking the intervention of the Court with touching faith and confidence in the Court. The Judges of the Court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement dweller than to the guest of the Five Star hotel." Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. If that can't be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement ? Expanding this principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. Article 39 (e) requires the State to secure that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and children of tender age are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. Article 41 obligates the state within the limits of its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to provide assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of underserved want. Article 43 (3) requires the State to endeavour to secure amongst other things full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. 49. Article 43 (3) requires the State to endeavour to secure amongst other things full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. 49. But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be made because to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners whenever they retired would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it would make a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not revised. The last revision of emoluments was as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission). If the emoluments remain the same, the computation of average emoluments under amended R. 34 may raise the average emoluments, the period for averaging being reduced from last 36 months to last 10 months. The slab will provide slightly higher pension and if someone reaches the maximum the old lower ceiling will not deny him what is otherwise justly due on computation. The words "who were in service on 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date" excluding the date for commencement of revision are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are vulnerable as denying equality and introducing an arbitrary fortuitous circumstance can be served without impairing the formula. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily severed. 64. Locus standi of third petitioner was questioned. Petitioner No. 3 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. It is a non-political non-profit and voluntary organisation. Its members consist of public spirited citizens who have take up the cause of ventilating legitimate public problems. 64. Locus standi of third petitioner was questioned. Petitioner No. 3 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. It is a non-political non-profit and voluntary organisation. Its members consist of public spirited citizens who have take up the cause of ventilating legitimate public problems. This Society received a large number of representations from old pensioners, individually unable to undertake the journey through labyrinths of legal judicial process, costly and protected, and, therefor, approached petitioner No. 3 which espoused their cause. Objects for which the third petitioner-Society was formed were not questioned. The majority decision of this Court in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87 : ( AIR 1982 SC 149 at p. 194), rules that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for such judicial redress for public injury arising from a breach of public duty or from violation some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. Third petitioner seeks to enforce rights that may be available to a large number of old infirm retirees. Therefore, its locus standi is unquestionable. But it is a point of academic importance because locus standi of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 was never questioned. 15. The petitioner is also entitled to the same facilities which have been made applicable to the retirees of Central Para Military Forces living in Delhi and other stations covered by CGHS. Once a person is covered under CGHS, he is entitled to get the benefit of instructions, dated 13.02.1995. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken treatment in a recognized hospital and in his case also, the Director, CGHS was bound to accord ex post facto permission/relaxation to the petitioner. The Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd., Okhla Road, New Delhi has been recognized as per office memorandum, dated 18.09.1996. 17. Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned vice counsel for the respondents has argued that since the petitioner was being paid a sum of `100/- per month, he was not entitled to reimbursement. Now, as far as this issue is concerned, fixed Medical allowance of Rs.100/-p.m. is granted to Central Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners residing in areas not covered by G.G.H.S. for meeting expenditure on day-to-day medical expenses and that do not require hospitalization. 18. Now, as far as this issue is concerned, fixed Medical allowance of Rs.100/-p.m. is granted to Central Government Pensioners/Family Pensioners residing in areas not covered by G.G.H.S. for meeting expenditure on day-to-day medical expenses and that do not require hospitalization. 18. According to letter, dated 05.06.1998, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi had no objection to the extension of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules to the Central Government pensioners residing in non-C.G.H.S. areas. It appears that no decision has been taken in this regard till date. The decision ought to have been taken by now, since it pertains to the welfare of the pensioners. The pensioners in twilight of their career cannot be forced to undergo expensive treatment without any reimbursement. He is entitled to reimbursement incurred by him for undergoing operation. It is the duty of the welfare State to look after the health of all the citizens including retirees. 19. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1388 have held as under: “10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary con-comitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right had recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to versus 17,18,20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine : 20. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla and others (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 83 have held that it is now settled law that right to health is integral to the right to life and the Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. It is contended for the appellants -State that the Government have take decision, as a policy in the Resolution dated January 25, 1991 made in Letter No.7/7/85/5HBV/2498, that the reimbursement of expenses on account of diet, stay of attendant and stay of patient in hotel/hospital will not be allowed. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. It is contended for the appellants -State that the Government have take decision, as a policy in the Resolution dated January 25, 1991 made in Letter No.7/7/85/5HBV/2498, that the reimbursement of expenses on account of diet, stay of attendant and stay of patient in hotel/hospital will not be allowed. Permission given was subject to the above resolution and, therefore, the High Court was not right in directing the Government to bear the expenses for the stay in the hotel/hospital contrary to para (vii) of the Resolution of the Government. We find no force in the contention. It is an admitted position that when specialised treatment was not a available in the Hospitals maintained by the State of Punjab, permission and approval having been given by the Medical Board to the respondent to have the treatment in the approved hospitals and having referred him to the AIIMS for specialised treatment where he was admitted, necessarily, the expenses incurred towards room rent for stay in the hospital as an inpatient are an integral part of the expenses incurred for the said treatment. Take, for instance, a case where an inpatient facility is not available in a specialised hospital and the patient has to stay in a hotel while undergoing the treatment, during the required period, as certified by the doctor, necessarily, the expenses incurred would be integral part of the expenditure incurred towards treatment. It is now settled law that right to health is an integral to right to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide the health facilities. If the Government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a specialised approved hospital and on reference whereat the Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government servant. Expenditure, thus, incurred requires to be reimbursed by the State to the employee. The High Court was, therefore, right in giving direction to reimburse the expenses incurred towards room rent by the respondent during his stay in the hospital as an inpatient. 11. We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the Government. It is seen that the Government had decided in the proceedings dated October 8, 1991 to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the Punjab Government employees/ pensioners and dependents on treatment taken abroad in private hospital. 11. We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the Government. It is seen that the Government had decided in the proceedings dated October 8, 1991 to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the Punjab Government employees/ pensioners and dependents on treatment taken abroad in private hospital. It is stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 that the Government has perpared a list of those diseases for which the specialised treatment is not available in Punjab Government Hospitals but it is available in certain identified private hospitals, both within and outside the States. It was, therefore, decided to recognise these hospitals for treatment of the diseases mentioned against their names in the enclosed list for the Punjab Government employees/pensioners and their dependents. The terms and conditions contained in the letter under reference would remain applicable. The Government can, however, revise the list in future. The name of the disease for which the treatment is not available in Punjab Government hospitals is shown as Open Heart Surgery and the name the name of the private hospital is shown as Escorts Heart Institute, new Delhi as one of the approved hospital/ institution. Thus, for open heart surgery or heart disease the Escorts Heart Institute is authorised and recognised institution by the Government of Punjab. Consequently, when the patient was admitted and had taken the treatment in the hospital and had incurred the expenditure towards room charges, inevitably the consequential rent paid for the room during his stay is integral part of his expenditure incurred for the treatment. Consequently the Government is required to reimburse the expenditure incurred for the period during which the patient stayed in the approved hospital for treatment. It is incongruous that while the patient is admitted to undergo treatment and he is refused the reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred towards room rent and is given the expenditure of the room rent chargeable in another institute whereat he had not actually undergone treatment. Under these circumstances, the contention of the State Government is obviously untenable and incongruous. We hold that the High Court was right in giving the direction for reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- incurred by the respondent towards the room rent for his stay while undergoing treatment in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi.” 21. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. We hold that the High Court was right in giving the direction for reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- incurred by the respondent towards the room rent for his stay while undergoing treatment in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi.” 21. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure R-2, dated 17.08.2004 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner during his treatment in Escorts Hospital, New Delhi, within a period of eight weeks from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.