JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha kumar, CJ 1. This application is filed seeking to condone the delay of 648 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the order made in SWP No. 1033/2011 dated 12.07.2013. In the application filed seeking to condone the delay it is stated that the judgment was rendered by this Court on 12.07.2013 and after receiving the order Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department requested the administrative department on 05.09.2013 for filing appeal. However, the case remained under process in the administrative department for getting approval of sanction from the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs till 16.12.2014 i.e., for over fifteen months. The administrative department on 16.12.2014 only directed the Principal Government Medical College, Jammu to contact the Deputy Advocate General along with record for drafting and filing of the appeal. The Principal, Govt. Medical College, Jammu on 29.12.2014 requested the Deputy Advocate General for drafting the appeal but the Deputy Advocate General showed her inability for personnel reason to file the appeal. The Principal, GMC again requested the administrative department to obtain sanction in favour of other law officer from the Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs Department on 14.02.2015 which was communicated to the Principal on 31.03.2015. Thereafter the appeal was filed. Thus the delay is claimed to be explained in the said affidavit. 2. At the first instance there is no explanation for the delay of over fifteen months as no action was taken by the administrative department i.e. from 05.09.2013 to 16.12.2014. As sufficient cause is not shown and the delay of 15 months remained unexplained, the delay of 648 days cannot be condoned. 3. On merits it is seen that the respondent was granted medical re-imbursement to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000 along with interest @ 6% per annum from 2008 by the learned Single Judge. The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that while as Senior X-Ray Technician, Govt. Medical College, Jammu he applied to 4th petitioner for leave for a period of five days with permission to leave the station w.e.f, 11.05.2007 to 15.05.2007 to attend one of his relatives at Jalandhar, who was hospitalized there. Leave was sanctioned for the said period with permission to leave the station. Medical College, Jammu he applied to 4th petitioner for leave for a period of five days with permission to leave the station w.e.f, 11.05.2007 to 15.05.2007 to attend one of his relatives at Jalandhar, who was hospitalized there. Leave was sanctioned for the said period with permission to leave the station. While the respondent was attending the relative patient at Jalandhar, he suddenly fell ill on 14.05.2007 and was admitted in Pruthi Hospital, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, a premier Heart Surgery Center. The respondent was diagnosed as “HT Coronary Artery” Disease and he had to undergo Coronary Angiography (CAG) and Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) on 14.05.2007. He was discharged on 17.05.2007. The said hospital has issued certificate on 17.05.2007 stating that respondent took treatment and he incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Respondent re-joined his duties on 01.06.2007 and requested the Superintendent, CD Hospital, Jammu for treating the absence w.e.f. 16.05.2007 to 31.05.2007 as medical leave. On 15.02.2008 the 2nd petitioner requested the Director, Health Services, Jammu to clarify as to whether the respondent was already suffering from any disease. The leave applied from 16.05.2007 to 31.05.2007 was sanctioned as medical leave, however, the claim of medical re-imbursement was not sanctioned. The respondent approached this Court by filing SWP No. 392/2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 09.08.2010 by giving direction to the Director Health Services, Jammu to record his findings regarding sudden illness of the respondent while he was temporarily outside the State and order by the Director, Health Services was to be issued within two months. No order having been passed the respondent filed a contempt petition No. COA(OW) No. 357/2010 and during pendency of the contempt petition an order was passed on 28.03.2011 rejecting the medical re-imbursement claim on the ground that as per Sub Rule-5 of Rule 6 of J&K Civil Services (Medical Attendance and Allowances) Rules, 1990, (for short “the Rules”), the Director Health Services has to specifically certify that the beneficiary suddenly fell ill while he was outside the State, however, certificate issued by the Director, Health Services was not as per the said requirement. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge contending that the respondent fell suddenly ill as stated supra and he took treatment at Pruthi Hospital at Jalandhar, therefore, he is entitled to get medical re-imbursement. 4. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge contending that the respondent fell suddenly ill as stated supra and he took treatment at Pruthi Hospital at Jalandhar, therefore, he is entitled to get medical re-imbursement. 4. The said writ petition was opposed by 2nd petitioner, who was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, by contending that even though the Director Health Services rendered a finding that the treatment received the respondent is genuine he cannot certify that the beneficiary has suddenly fell ill outside the State and was not already suffering from the disease before departure and he has past history of multiple disease and is known case of RH disease since 1998 with hypertension and type II DM as evidence from the case history of the respondent given by Pruthi Hospital, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar. On the basis of the findings of the Director, Health Services claim of the respondent was considered under Rules and the claim was rejected. 5. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that though the respondent was having hypertension and many other diseases, the certificate nowhere indicates that the respondent was already suffering from HT Coronary Artery disease prior to his admission on 14.05.2007 and the respondent was not aware of the suffering of such disease and it was only diagnosed by the Hospital at Jalandhar. The learned Single Judge also found that nothing was placed on record to indicate that prior to 14.05.2007 the respondent was already suffering from HT Coronary Artery Disease. The learned Single Judge also gave a finding that due to sudden disease i.e. HT Coronary Artery which was developed at Jalandhar when he was on leave to visit one of his relatives who was taking treatment the respondent took treatment due to emergency and same is permissible as per sub Rule 5 of Rule 6 of Rules of 1990. Learned Single also noticed that the sudden illness, the treatment taken and the genuinity of the same having not been disputed the petitioners are not justified in rejecting the claim and ordered to pay medical reimbursement claim of Rs. 2,25,000 with interest @ 6% per annum. 6. Sub Rule 5 of Rule 6 empowers the Government to sanction medical reimbursement; if a government employee while in outstation suffered sudden illness he can take treatment without waiting for getting the treatment in his home town. 2,25,000 with interest @ 6% per annum. 6. Sub Rule 5 of Rule 6 empowers the Government to sanction medical reimbursement; if a government employee while in outstation suffered sudden illness he can take treatment without waiting for getting the treatment in his home town. The said sub-rule 5 of Rule 6 reads as under- “(5) Where a beneficiary resides temporarily outside the State and falls ill there suddenly and is advised admission in a hospital, he will, on production of necessary vouchers and certificates, be allowed reimbursement of hospital charges including cost of drugs and charges for investigations, provided it is recommended by the Director Health Services of the State after being satisfied that the beneficiary had suddenly fallen ill outside the State where he resided temporarily and was not already suffering from it before his departure from his home town. The Director Health Services will certify that drugs and services charged for are reasonable and the beneficiary could not wait for treatment in his home town.” 6. On perusal of the above rule it is crystal clear that a government servant can take treatment in a hospital outside the State if there is any emergency and the same is certified by the competent authority. The government is also vested with the power to grant relaxation of the rigor of the rule if there is a technical violation, even if it is established. The Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 reads as follows:- “(ii) Power to relax:- Where the Government is satisfied that the operation, if any, of these rules has caused undue hardship in particular case, it may by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exception and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Finance Department.” 7. Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Finance Department.” 7. A similar claim of an Assistant Surgeon in the Health Department, claiming medical reimbursement for treatment of his son at United Kingdoms was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in JKJ (HC) (3) 2004, 412 ( State of J&K v. Sakhi Willayat) and it was held that the rules cannot be interpreted to operate harshly in medical treatment cases and in the said case the government gracefully accepted the judgment of the Division Bench and conceded to consider the eligible medical claim within a period of four months. 8. In the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 5 SCC 328 ( State of Karnataka and anr v. R. Vivekananda Swamy), the claim of medical reimbursement of a government servant of State of Karnataka and a District Judge of the State of Rajasthan came up for consideration. In the said judgment the necessity to have the treatment emergently, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is emphasized. In paragraph 21 it is held thus:- “21. In Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others: (1996) 2 SCC 336 this Court in a case where the appellant therein while in England fell ill and being a case of emergency case was admitted in Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham. After proper medical diagnosis he was suggested treatment at a named alternate place. He was admitted and undergone bypass surgery in Humana Hospital, Wellington, London. He claimed reimbursement for the amount spent by him. In the peculiar facts of that case it was held:- “11. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant 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-preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to verses 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: 17. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to verses 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: 17. Vinaa dehena kasyaapi canpurushaartho na vidyate Tasmaaddeham dhanam rakshetpunyakarmaani saadhayet Without the body how can one obtain the objects of human life? Therefore protecting the body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit. 18. Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya bhaajanam Rakshane yatnamaatishthejje vanbhaadraani pashyati One should protect his body which is responsible for every thing. He who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life. 20. Sharirarakshanopaayaah kriyante sarvadaa budhaih Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi kushthaadiroginah The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. Even the persons suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid of the body. 22. Aatmaiva yadi naatmaanamahitebhyo nivaarayet Konsyo hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati if one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is good to himself.” 9. Thus the right of a government servant, that one should do what is good for himself, cannot be disputed. In the said judgment, in particular, it was held that medical reimbursement claim should be considered only on the basis of the rules which are issued by the government. 10. The remarks of the Medical Superintendent dated 18.12.2007 states as follows:- “The official was on duly sanctioned casual leave w.e.f. 11.05.07 to 15.05.07 with permission to leave the station. How the official has gone outside the state why and from where he has taken the treatment is not under the knowledge of the undersigned, but the queries raised in the letter has been thoroughly explained and replied by the official. The contents of the reply are self explanatory which needs no scope for further correspondence. The official belong to Medical Profession and knows the consequences and complications of the sudden cardiac pain/heart attack, if not treated well in time. Hence the action and the conduct of the employee in meeting the dire emergency at that crucial point of pain and agony was in right direction i.e. the need of the hour was to go for emergency operation rather than wait for all other formalities to safe his life. Hence the action and the conduct of the employee in meeting the dire emergency at that crucial point of pain and agony was in right direction i.e. the need of the hour was to go for emergency operation rather than wait for all other formalities to safe his life. The undersigned does not only recommend his case of medical claim for re-imbursement out appreciate his sense of quick and right decision taken by the official within his professional knowledge, competence and circumstances available under his command in saving his life as “ETHICS OVERRIDES THE LEGALITIES”. In view of the above mentioned remarks, it is strongly recommended that his case of medical claim may be processed at the earliest and his legitimate dues incurred on his emergency treatment may be reimbursed so that he can repay his hefty loan taken from his friends and relatives as requested by the employee in his reply.” 11. As stated supra, in this case Rule 6 is relevant and the said rule also empowers the Government to grant medical reimbursement even if the government servant had taken treatment outside the State, if he was allowed to avail leave during the relevant period and permitted to go out of station. The only reason stated in non-mentioning of previous medical history of the respondent. Even if there is no such specific finding, the certificate extracted above clearly demonstrates the eligibility of the respondent to get the medical claim. Even otherwise there is power to relax, as stated supra. Even in the impugned order rejecting the claim dated 28.03.2011 it is stated that the treatment received by the respondent is genuine. However, the certificate issued by the Director, Health Services not conclusively established the fact that the respondent fell ill suddenly or was already ill when he proceeded to Jalandhar. Therefore, only on hyper-technical ground the medical reimbursement claim was rejected. The Scheme or Rule for paying medical re-imbursement to the government servants, who is contributing to the fund, which is a welfare legislation is intended to be interpreted for the benefit of government servants and the same cannot be narrowly interpreted to deny the right so long as the claim is found genuine as immediate treatment was required which is also established by the respondent. Hence the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. Hence the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. We are unable to find any reason to upset the said order. As there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed not only on the ground of unexplained delay but also on merits. The petitioners are directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.