JUDGMENT INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. 1. The petitioner Sri Siba Prasad Nayak who is a Government employee working as S.A. in the office of the D.P.S. & P. Madhupatana, Cuttack has filed the present writ application seeking direction to the opposite parties and in particular, Opposite party No.1 (The Director, Health Service and Chairman of Technical Committee of Muscular Dystrophy Patients in the State of Orissa) to issue a "referral certificate" for his son, namely, Sarada Prasad Nayak to go for treatment of "Muscular Dystrophy" disease (Stem-cell therapy) at Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra) or the State Muscular Dystrophy disease at Madurai Tamilnadu or any such place where immediate treatment may be available for the patient as well as to opposite party No.6 to sanction the necessary medical advance to the petitioner for treatment of his ailing son immediately after receiving the referral certificate. 2. It is averred by the petitioner that his son, namely, Sarada Prasad Nayak is a good student and after completing +2 Science he is now studying in B. Tech Course. While he was continuing his study, suddenly he felt pain on his two legs and was unable to move. He, thereafter, went to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital. Cuttack for treatment and thereafter, he was referred to various doctors of various departments like Medicine, Neurology and Orthopedic. While the doctors at the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack were unable to diagnose the disease they referred the petitioner's son to the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore for better evaluation. The petitioner's son thereafter was taken for evaluation of the disease to Bangalore and the doctors at NIMHANS evaluated the petitioner's ailing son to be suffering from the disease known as "Muscular Dystrophy" under Annexure 2. Thereafter, the petitioner sent the blood samples of the petitioner's son to the JAIN Foundation, USA for better analysis and the said JAIN Foundation submitted their opinion confirming the fact that the petitioner's son is suffering from the disease scientifically known as "Dysferlinopathy" and was further informed that the research for the disease is going on and the Foundation was in the process of research to try and invent medicine for the cure of such disease under Annexure 3. 3. 3. The petitioner thereafter made representation to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India for encouraging research in order to enhance the possible discovery of medicine for treatment of 'Muscular Dystrophy' disease and similar representations also addressed to the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as well as to the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research. The Director General, ICMR responded the petitioner's communication vide letter dated 22.5.2012 advising the petitioner to contract Dr. B.R. Laxmi, Coimbatore and Dr. S. Khadilkar of Mumbai. Accordingly, the petitioner contacted the doctors named above and in turn, they advised the petitioner to contact certain research centers where treatment for Muscular Dystrophy disease was being researched. 4. On 17.10.2012 while the petitioner was desperately researching on the internet, he learnt that there are two Foundations i.e. Muscular Dystrophy Foundation of India at Madurai, Tamilnadu and Chaitanya Stem-Cell Centre, Pune in India where the patients of "Muscular Dystrophy" are being benefited by way of "Stem-Cell Therapy" though such treatment was experimental and by way of research. Accordingly, the petitioner wrote to such organizations seeking their assistance for treating his son and sought for information regarding approximate charge for such treatment. The response from the aforesaid centers as well as the expenses involved was intimated to the petitioner through e-mail under Annexure 6 and 7 respectively. Since the amount required for treatment was beyond the financial means of the petitioner, he sought for necessary assistance from the State Government by addressing a representation to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department praying for sanction of Rs. 4,00,000/- for treatment of his son. 5. It is further averred that upon receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary to Government issued a letter to the Director, Printing Stationary and Publication Orissa, Cuttack for sanction of medical advance in favour of the petitioner for treatment of his son where the petitioner was working. The Director called upon the petitioner to provide necessary supporting documents and also sought for permission of the D.M.E.T., Orissa for sanction of medical advance. 6. The Director called upon the petitioner to provide necessary supporting documents and also sought for permission of the D.M.E.T., Orissa for sanction of medical advance. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and approached the Opposite party No.4 (Professor and H.O.D., Neurology) for issuing the necessary "referral certificate" for which purpose, the petitioner's son had to be admitted once again in S.C.B. Medical College on 27.12.2012 and discharged on 2.1.2003. Thereafter a Committee was formed and a meeting was convened for such a committee on 7.1.2013, took a decision on the issue of referral. The said Committee which consisted of the H.O.D. of Medicine, Neurology and Orthopedics ultimately turned down the request for referral on the basis of the following conclusions:– "The Committee discussed about the treatment of the Muscular Dystrophy as the Stem-Cell therapy for muscular dystrophy is still a research initiative not ethically approved method for treatment and therefore, cannot be approved. The Committee after threadbare discussion was of the opinion that we cannot refer a human being for an experimental studies." 7. In the light of the facts as noted herein above, the petitioner was left no alternative other than to approach this Court by way of filing the Writ application seeking the relief as noted herein above. This Court considering the emergent need for treatment of the petitioner's son directed issue of notice to the State vide order dated 31.1.2013 and listing of the matter on 7.2.2013. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of the State and on 8.2.2013, written instructions were received by the office of the Advocate General for producing the same before this Court. 8. The letter of the Superintendent, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack No. 3036 dated 5.2.2013 addressed to the Advocate General, Orissa Cuttack along with the enclosures for producing the same before this Court. The relevant portion of the said communication is extracted herein below:– "With reference to above, I am to say that a referral committee was formed on 07.01.2013 consisting of Prof. & HOD of Medicine, Neurology and Orthopaedics under the chairmanship of Superintendent, SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack wherein a decision was taken that since the disease Muscular Dystrophy is not curable and Stem Cell therapy for Muscular Dystrophy is still a research initiative not ethically approved method for treatment. & HOD of Medicine, Neurology and Orthopaedics under the chairmanship of Superintendent, SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack wherein a decision was taken that since the disease Muscular Dystrophy is not curable and Stem Cell therapy for Muscular Dystrophy is still a research initiative not ethically approved method for treatment. Further, the committee after due discussion was of the opinion that the patient cannot be referred being a human being for an experimental study. Therefore, the referral could not be approved." While directions were issued to the State counsel to serve copies of the said document on the petitioner's counsel, the matter was next posted to 11.2.2013. On the said date the members of the Committee who were the H.O.D. of Medicine, Neurology and Orthopedics appeared before the Court to assist the Court in understanding the nature of the disease and the grounds for refusal of referral. In course of such submission, the Members of the Committee who were confronted by the Court to the letter of the Superintendent dated 5.2.2013, while reiterating the contents of the said communication, it was stated that certain guidelines for assistance under the "Orissa State Treatment Fund" has been formulated by the State and placing reliance on the same it was submitted that there are mainly four grounds on which the Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner, is as follows:– (i) The disease of Muscular Dystrophy is not curable. (ii) Stem-Cell therapy for Muscular disease is still a research initiative not ethically approved method for treatment. (iii) Experimental or researched initiative does not fall within the meaning of the term "treatment". (iv) The institution to which the reference has been sought was not duly approved by the State Government. 9. In course of hearing of the case with regard to the grounds raised hereinabove, the Court sought for assistance of Shri S.D. Das, learned Asst. Solicitor General, Shri B.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel, Shri Biswajit Mohanty, learned counsel as well as Shri G. Mishra, learned counsel to assist the Court. 10. In the light of the facts and contentions as noted hereinabove, now it becomes necessary to deal with Issue No. (iv) i.e. the issue as to whether the institute to which the petitioner has sought reference is recognized and whett1er the petitioner's son, could be referred to such an institute? 10. In the light of the facts and contentions as noted hereinabove, now it becomes necessary to deal with Issue No. (iv) i.e. the issue as to whether the institute to which the petitioner has sought reference is recognized and whett1er the petitioner's son, could be referred to such an institute? In this respect, Shri Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Office Memorandum dated 7th November, 2012, in terms of which, Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra) has been duly approved by the Central Government for treatment of their employees under CS (MA) Rules, 1994. Shri S.D. Das learned Asst. Solicitor General duly confirmed the aforesaid fact by submitting a copy of the said Notification during hearing of the matter. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Government of Orissa in the Health and Family Welfare Department vide Resolution dated 17th May, 2002, published in the Orissa Gazette dated July 12, 2002 on the subject of "Concession regarding treatment of State Government servants and their families and other entitled persons" outside the State and approved Private referral hospitals within the State provided a copy of the said Gazette and in particular drew our attention to the last paragraph of the said notification which reads as thus:– "The practice of declaring certain hospitals as "approved referral hospitals" shall be discontinued. A Government employee or his/her family member, or other entitled person, if referred for a particular kind of treatment by any of the Referral Medical Committees consisting of Senior Professors in each of the three Medical Colleges in the State, may undergo that treatment at any hospital in the country which is either a State or a Central Government hospital, or a private hospital recognized as a referral hospital by the Government of India or the concerned State Government where the hospital is located. Reimbursement of cost of treatment will be limited to the ceiling fixed for that kind of treatment." 11. Placing reliance on the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that amongst the various institutions to which the petitioner sought referral, the Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune, having been recognized by the Central Government has a referral hospital by the Government of India, there exists no legal bar to deny the petitioner's son referral to the said hospital. In course of argument, both learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State as well as the learned Asst. Solicitor General confirmed to the fact that Chaitanya Hospital at Chinchwad, Pune was approved by the Central Government as referral hospital and, therefore, there exists no legal bar for such a referral. Therefore, the Issue NO.4 as noted hereinabove is answered accordingly. Insofar as Issue No.3 is concerned, Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned amicus curiae brought to the Court's notice the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Himansu Sekhar Nandy vs. Magistrate and another, 1977 Cri L.J. 312. In the said case Hon'ble Justice S.K. Ray (the then Acting Chief Justice) dealt with the word 'treatment' as available in the Jail Manual and applicable to a detenues and came to hold at paragraph-6 thereof which is as follows:– "6. The word 'treatment' must be understood in its fullest (amplitude and not in the narrow sense of palliative treatment-treatment required to deal with casual illnesses. Treatment' in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary means, way of applying remedies. In Webster's Dictionary 'treatment' means manner of applying remedies to cure; mode or course pursued for remedial ends; as, the treatment of a disease; the treatment of a patient. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 87 at page 949, the word 'treatment' is said to be also employed to indicate all the steps taken in order to effect a cure of an inquiry or disease. Cure as the end would include arresting the disease from further worsening as a step towards that end. "Treatment" would include taking such steps as would not only tend to effect a cure of a disease but also steps which would prevent further deterioration of the disease". 12. This Court while being in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the aforesaid judgment, is also of the clear view that 'treatment' cannot be deemed to apply only to cure but also includes within its widest meaning, all steps taken in order to cure an injury or disease and would include all steps which would "arrest the disease from further deterioration". Therefore, the word 'treatment' would not only include within its ambit the "cure of the disease" but also would include the steps that could be taken to prevent further deterioration of the disease. Therefore, the word 'treatment' would not only include within its ambit the "cure of the disease" but also would include the steps that could be taken to prevent further deterioration of the disease. We are also of the considered views that the word 'treatment' brings within the ambit and scope all steps that may have to be taken, even in a case of an incurable disease taken to ameliorate pain or suffering even in a case of patient who has no known medical chance of survival. Easing of pain of a patient at death door obviously should also be treated within the scope of ambit of "treatment". We are constrained to note that the attempt at giving a restrictive meaning to the term "treatment" to only such disease for which there are already known/accepted me86ures of treatment, would in our considered view be wholly frustrative of legislative intent behind framing the guidelines and policy resolution of the State and also be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others vs. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 1996 SC 2426 dealt with the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and came to hold that, the failure on the part of Government to provide medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment would result in violation of his 'right to life' guaranteed under Article 21. While there cannot be two opinions on this issue yet the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that no State or any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its project, which includes providing medical assistance to the citizens including its employees. While such provision of facilities cannot be unlimited, finance has to be given to the extent permitted. In the present case, the guidelines for assistance provided under the "Orissa State Treatment Fund" provides in paragraph 2.1 that "Financial aid so granted shall be one-time grant only with an upper limit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for treatment within or outside the State", whereas, such a limit is purely within the competence of the State and may be wholly justified. This Court requests the State to render the maximum health possible in order to try and assist the petitioner's son in fight such a debilitating disease. 14. 3.00 lakhs for treatment within or outside the State", whereas, such a limit is purely within the competence of the State and may be wholly justified. This Court requests the State to render the maximum health possible in order to try and assist the petitioner's son in fight such a debilitating disease. 14. The second issue has been substantially dealt with in issue No. (iii) but, we may add that, merely because at the present juncture in the history of development of medicine, no medically accepted treatment for "Muscular Dystrophy" exists and does not mean that no treatment can be given to the petitioner's ailing son, when both the petitioner and his son are willing to give their consent for such experimental treatment. Of course, for the purpose of experimental treatment, the consent of the petitioner as well as his son may be mandatory and also the institute which conducts Stem-Cell research may obviously require the necessary clearances of the appropriate authority. But, we find no justifiable ground to deny referring the son of the petitioner to Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra) (which is approved referral hospital), specifically permitted by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. We are of the further view that though it is claimed that the research and/or experiment cannot be permitted on a patient being a human being, is clearly beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the referral committee. Such ethical issues and/or permissions for experimental research are not matters within the scope and ambit of the referral committee constituted by the State to refer the petitioner's son who is suffering from Muscular Dystrophy for treatment at the Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra). Once the petitioner and his son go there, their consent will have to be obtained and the necessary permissions from the appropriate authorities, including the ICMR and any other authorities may have to be obtained. But, such issues we repeat cannot be permitted to come in the way of referring the petitioner's son to Chaitanya Hospital for treatment. 15. Insofar as Issue No. (i) is concerned, the fact that as on date, no known medicine or cure for "Muscular Dystrophy" is presently available. The world of 'science' and 'research' therein is in a continuous process of evaluation and what is not known today, may be known tomorrow only through research. 15. Insofar as Issue No. (i) is concerned, the fact that as on date, no known medicine or cure for "Muscular Dystrophy" is presently available. The world of 'science' and 'research' therein is in a continuous process of evaluation and what is not known today, may be known tomorrow only through research. Insofar as incurable diseases are concerned, we are of the considered view that even if certain diseases are medically termed as "incurable", if any facility exists where such patient's pain and suffering is of amelioration or reduced, such an act or treatment may not be a "cure" in the classical sense but, even then has to be treated as part of "treatment". From the various reports of research on "Muscular Dystrophy" is concerned, as annexed under Annexure 6 it is stated by the research foundation that "while a person cannot be cured and while in research, the ambit of such research and trials would reduce the speed of deterioration and maintain status quo/prolong the livability of a patient. The effects of Stemcell Therapy would be much better with young words with walking abilities and who does not have other problems." 16. We are of the considered view that if such Stem-Cell Therapy is made available to the petitioner's son for such disease and if through such research or trial on the petitioner's son such treatment reduces the speed of deterioration and maintain the status quo/prolong the livability of a patient, we believe that the same itself would be a great advancement and would most definitely come within the scope and ambit of the term treatment. 17. In the light of the findings arrived herein we are of the considered view that the present writ application ought to be allowed with the following directions:– (i) Opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to issue a referral certificate to the petitioner's ailing son, namely, Sarada Prasad Nayak for going to the Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra) for immediate treatment within three days from today. (ii) Opposite party No.6 (The Director, Printing Stationery & Publication, Orissa) is directed to sanction the maximum limit of medical advance available under the guidelines published in the Orissa Gazette in favour of the petitioner to enable him to proceed to Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra) for treatment within a further period of one week thereafter. 18. (ii) Opposite party No.6 (The Director, Printing Stationery & Publication, Orissa) is directed to sanction the maximum limit of medical advance available under the guidelines published in the Orissa Gazette in favour of the petitioner to enable him to proceed to Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra) for treatment within a further period of one week thereafter. 18. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. This Court also records its appreciation for the invaluable assistance given by the learned counsel appeared as amicus who are named hereinabove. Free copy of this judgment be handed over to the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as to the petitioner for necessary communication and compliance. I agree. Application allowed.