JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri A. Rommel, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. This is a writ petition in which the petitioner has prayed for quashing/setting aside the impugned letter dated 20-10-2014 issued by the Director of Health Services, Manipur and for issuing directions to the respondents to reimburse his medical expenses. 3.1 The petitioner who is serving as Section Officer Grade-I, PWD, Manipur, suffered from diarrhoea sometimes in the month of March, 2014 and after having consulted a gastroenterologist and as per his advice, a Colon Endoscopy was done. From the report of the C.T. Scan, his prostate gland was found enlarged and after seeing the said report of the C.T. Scan, on 15-03-2014, the petitioner was advised to go to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Delhi for treatment. In view of the urgent treatment being required and Surgical Oncologist or Uro-Oncologist not being available in Manipur, the petitioner left for Delhi on 17-03-2014 and after his being examined as an Out Patient, he was admitted at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi on 26-03-2014. After having performed various clinical tests and operated upon, the petitioner was discharged from the Hospital on 11-04-2014. The petitioner spent a total sum of Rs. 4,40,957.69/- (Rupees four lakhs forty thousand nine hundred fifty seven and sixty nine paise) only towards his aforesaid treatment. 3.2 After returning from Delhi, the petitioner through its Executive Engineer, Building Division No. -II, PWD, Manipur submitted the relevant documents to the Chairman, State Medical Board, Medical Directorate for ex-post facto sanction. However, on 20-10-2014, the Director of Health Services informed the said Executive Engineer that the Board did not consider the ex-post facto approval for the treatment at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi for the reason that the said Institute is a private and non-recognised hospital for medical reimbursement. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The present writ petition is contested by the respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the petitioner underwent his treatment outside the State of Manipur without prior approval of the State Medical Board and that the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute is not a hospital empanelled by the State Government and the medical reimbursement for having been treated at such private hospital is not permissible under the C.C.S (M.A.) Rules and other existing rules of the Government of Manipur. It is further stated that if such request for reimbursement is accepted, the whole purpose of the constitution of State Medical Board, in respect of medical reimbursement, shall be frustrated. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that right to health is a fundamental right and it includes within the realm of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that such reimbursement for medical treatment is permissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 wherein the appellant, while in London, got himself admitted and operated upon for a by-pass surgery and on returning to India, he submitted a bill for medical reimbursement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “12. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self-preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, barefacedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to the contrary. In the facts and circumstances, had the appellant remained in India, he could have gone to Escorts like many others did, to save his life. But instead he has done that in London incurring considerable expense. The doctors causing his operation there are presumed to have done so as one essential and timely. We think to the contrary. In the facts and circumstances, had the appellant remained in India, he could have gone to Escorts like many others did, to save his life. But instead he has done that in London incurring considerable expense. The doctors causing his operation there are presumed to have done so as one essential and timely. On that hypothesis, it is fair and just that the respondents pay to the appellant, the rates admissible as per Escorts. The claim of the appellant having been found valid, the question posed at the outset is answered in the affirmative. Of course the sum of Rs. 40,000 already paid to the appellant would have to be adjusted in computation. Since the appellant did not have his claim dealt with in the High Court in the manner it has been projected now in this Court, we do not grant any interest for the intervening period, even though prayed for. Let the difference be paid to the appellant within two months positively. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There need be no order as to costs.” Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court had delivered a judgment and order in the case of Gouri Sen Gupta v. State of Assam, reported in 1999 (3) GLT 601 wherein the petitioner consulted a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh and after preliminary examination, it was found that she was suffering from Carcinoma for which she was advised to go for major abdominal surgery for removal of the uterus at an advanced hospital outside the State and accordingly, she went to Calcutta and got himself treated in Lans Down Nursing and Research Centre, Calcutta and the petitioner after completion of her treatment returned to Dibrugarh and submitted the relevant papers for medical reimbursement. Her writ petition was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to pay the amount of Rs. 34,774.19/- (Rupees thirty four thousand seven hundred seventy four and nineteen paise) only within a month with 18 % interest. Similarly, the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench had decided a writ appeal being W.A. No. 71 of 2007, State of Manipur & ors. Her writ petition was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to pay the amount of Rs. 34,774.19/- (Rupees thirty four thousand seven hundred seventy four and nineteen paise) only within a month with 18 % interest. Similarly, the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench had decided a writ appeal being W.A. No. 71 of 2007, State of Manipur & ors. v. Angom Suchila Devi, reported in 2009 (3) GLT 757 which was directed against the judgment and order dated 05-04-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in the W.P. (C) No. 778 of 2006 wherein the petitioner, while in Bangalore, was admitted at Kidwai Institute of Oncology, Bangalore and after examination she was advised for histological evaluation by way of lumpectomy and biopsy for which she was admitted at Mallaya Hospital, Bangalore. On her return from Bangalore, her case was referred to the State Medical Board which conveyed that medical reimbursement could not be considered as per C.C.S. (M.A.) Rules, 1944 without obtaining approval of the State Medical Board for further follow-up and check-up, she left Imphal and got herself attended at Mallaya Hospital, Bangalore. As the amount claimed for ex-post facto approval both for the first and second trip were not being granted, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Gauahti High Court, Imphal Bench by way of a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court, held that the petitioner was entitled to relief in respect of the first trip only. 6. The learned Government Advocate has not cited any judgment in support of his contention. However, he has relied upon the O.M. dated 16-07-1974 issued by the Government of India and the relevant partition of which is reproduced herein below: “(1) Circumstances to justify treatment in private medical institution. - In emergent cases involving accidents, serious nature of disease, etc., the person/persons on the spot may use their discretion for taking the patient for treatment in a private hospital in case no Government or recognized hospital is available nearer than the private hospital. The Controlling Authority/Department will decide on the merits of the case whether it was a case of real emergency necessitating admission in a private institution. The Controlling Authority/Department will decide on the merits of the case whether it was a case of real emergency necessitating admission in a private institution. If the Controlling Authorities/Departments have any doubt, they may make a reference to the Director-General of Health Services for opinion.” 7. Admittedly, there is no dispute as regards the facts of the case and the only stand taken by the State Government is that medical reimbursement as claimed by the petitioner cannot be permitted in law. Rule 6 of the C.C.S. (M.A.) Rules, 1944 (1)(i) provides that a Government servant shall be entitled to, free of charge, treatment in a Government hospital at or near the place where he falls ill. An exception has been curved out in sub-rule (1)(ii) which provides that a Government servant shall be entitled to, free of charge, treatment in a private hospital subject the condition mentioned therein. Rule 6(2) provides for reimbursement of medical expenses. It may be noted that the said rules were made keeping in mind the circumstances prevailing at that point of time and since there had been changes in the circumstances thereafter, the Government of India had to issue instructions from time to time including the one mentioned above and relied upon by the learned Government Advocate. But one thing is clear that medical reimbursement for expenses towards treatment in private hospital is permissible, subject to the conditions mentioned therein, in accordance with the policy decision of the Government concerned and it is not that it is impermissible at all. 8. There has been further changes recently in the circumstances with the development of science and technology in the field of Medicine, as a result, a private hospital differs from the other in respect of medical facilities to be provided therein. When one is not sure which hospital would be better for the ailment that he suffers, it must be left with the employee concerned to choose a hospital of his choice so as to avoid repentance in future. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh case (supra) has explained what is self-preservation and what can be done by the individual concerned for it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh case (supra) has explained what is self-preservation and what can be done by the individual concerned for it. As per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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 and for his self-preservation, one has the right to take steps accordingly. One needn't stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which makes its meetings difficult to happen and needn't stand in queue in Government hospital and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital as per policy. As has been stated hereinabove, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court had delivered a judgment in the case of Gouri Sen Gupta v. State of Assam, reported in 1999 (3) GLT 601 (supra), the facts of which are very much identical to that of the present case. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner had to take immediate steps the moment he came to know about the seriousness of his illness and to take a decision keeping in mind the circumstances namely the advice of the consulting doctor advising him to go to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Delhi for treatment and non-availability of Surgical Oncologist or Uro-oncologist in Manipur and the urgent nature of his illness and it is no doubt true that the petitioner ought to have gone to the private hospital recognised/approved by the State Government so as to avoid such problem of reimbursement. But the fact remains that since the petitioner had the right to self-preservation as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is quite natural that he opted for the private hospital which his consulting doctor had suggested, with the idea that he would get better attention there with the reference of his consulting doctor. Considering the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that it is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of Gouri Sen Gupta v. State of Assam, reported in 1999 (3) GLT 601 (supra) and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to succeed. Considering the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that it is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of Gouri Sen Gupta v. State of Assam, reported in 1999 (3) GLT 601 (supra) and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to succeed. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner's medical expenses be reimbursed as per the rates approved by the State Government. 10. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed and the letter dated 20-10-2014 of the Director of Health Services, Manipur is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses, incurred by the petitioner, to be calculated based on the rates approved by the State Government in respect of items listed therein or on the rates charged by a private hospital recognised/approved by the State Government within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___