JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Samarjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. who appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner, while serving as the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Art and Culture, Government of Manipur, suffered from Chronic Kidney Disease Stage-5 on Maintenance Hemodialysis Diabetes Mellitus Type-2. As such, she was admitted at RIMS Hospital and the doctor who treated her advised her for further evaluation and Kidney Transplantation either at AIMS or at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon. Accordingly, the Doctor gave a medical certificate dated 02.03.2010, referring her case to the State Medical Board for treatment outside Manipur. Since her condition deteriorated day by day and an urgent treatment in a well-equipped hospital was called for the petitioner, without awaiting the decision of the State Medical Board, left Imphal on 05.03.2010 by air and on reaching Gurgaon, she was admitted at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital as an emergency case. She was treated in the said Hospital from 05.03.2010 to 10.04.2010. In the meanwhile, the State Medical Board examined the case of the petitioner on 20.05.2010 and issued a No Objection Certificate for her treatment at Indraprasath Appollo Hospital at New Delhi. But since her treatment was immediately required, as per the advice of her doctor, she took the treatment at the same Hospital, Medanta-the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon from 31.05.2010 to 26.05.2010. A little after about a month, she was once again admitted at the same hospital on 05.07.2010 for elective renal transplant with her son as donor. And on 06.07.2010, life donor renal allografting and right urethra lithotomy plus DJ stenting was performed on her and she was discharged on 19.07.2010. Again, as required, the petitioner was admitted in the same hospital on 21.07.2010 for further treatment and she was discharged on 17.08.2010 after the same was over. After all the treatment was over, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17.09.2010 to the Deputy Secretary (D.P.), Government of Manipur for according ex-post facto sanction for Medical reimbursement for the treatment she had undergone at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon, enclosing all the relevant documents. After all the treatment was over, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17.09.2010 to the Deputy Secretary (D.P.), Government of Manipur for according ex-post facto sanction for Medical reimbursement for the treatment she had undergone at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon, enclosing all the relevant documents. However, the Director of Health Services, Government of Manipur, vide his letter dated 25.10.2020 informed the Deputy Secretary (D.P.), Government of Manipur that the State Medical Board did not approved the ex-post facto sanction for the treatment of the petitioner at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital, at Gurgaon as requested for on the ground that the said hospital is not a recognized or approved hospital for treatment of Government employees and their family members. The petitioner, having no alternative, submitted another representation to the Hon’ble Minister, Health, in the month of March, 2011 praying for the same. Accordingly, her case was reexamined by the State Medical Board once again, in its meeting held on 25.08.2011, but the Board did not change their stand as taken earlier. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner who has retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2011 on superannuation has come to this Court praying for quashing of the orders rejecting her application for postfacto approval for her treatment at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital, Gurgaon and at the same time praying for issuance of a direction/order or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents to accord post facto approval of her treatment at the said hospital and to reimburse all the expenditures she had incurred for her treatment. 3. On the side of the respondents, they have not denied the fact that the petitioner had undergone the treatment at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon for the ailment she had mentioned in her petition. But the only point of objection they have raised is that while the State Medical Board recommended the petitioner’s treatment at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi she had undergone the treatment in a Hospital which is not recognized by the Government of Manipur and not recommended by the State Medical Board, as such, she is not entitled to reimbursement of the expenses she had incurred in her treatment. 4. 4. In catena of cases, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and this High Court has dealt with such kind of cases and directed that such patients who had undergone treatment at hospitals other than the ones recommended by the State Medical Board be given reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them, at the rate calculated on the basis of the rates approved by the State Government or on the rates charged by a Private hospital recognized/approved by the State Government. One of such cases in which such order or direction was given is the case of “Shri Soram Nabakumar V The State of Manipur, and 2 Others” in W.P.(C) No. 1036 of 2014. The judgment and order passed on 16.06.2015, in that case was upheld by a Division Bench of this High Court, in W.A. No. 43 of 2016. In the case of “Surjit Singh V the State of Punjab and Others” reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained what is self-preservation and what can be done by the individual concerned for it as follows: “Self-preservation of one’s life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life as enshrined under 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.” What the petitioner has done in this case is to save her life only and nothing else. She has every right to go to a hospital where she is advised to go by her doctor and where she believed the best facilities are available for saving her precious life. The fact that the hospital is not recognized cannot stand on her way to save her life. Human beings have only one life and that makes it most precious. Therefore, one can neither be prevented nor denied from taking such measure which he or she believes or is advised to be the best available one for saving his or her life. Moreover, the Government in such cases will incur no lost if the petitioners’ medical expenses are to be reimbursed at the same rate charged by the private hospitals recognized by it or to which such petitioners are recommended for treatment by Medical Board. 5. Moreover, the Government in such cases will incur no lost if the petitioners’ medical expenses are to be reimbursed at the same rate charged by the private hospitals recognized by it or to which such petitioners are recommended for treatment by Medical Board. 5. In view of the decisions of this High Court in similar cases and the reasons briefly discussed, the decisions of the Manipur State Medical Board refusing to give post facto approval to the treatment of the petitioner at Medanta- the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon as communicated through the letter dated 25.10.2010, the letter dated 11.04.2010 and the letter dated 29.08.2011 of the Director of Health Services, Government of Manipur at Annexure-A/9, Annexure-A/11 and Annexure-A/12 respectively violets the right of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution of India, therefore, the same are quashed and set aside. In consequence, the respondents are directed to give post facto approval to the treatment of the petitioner at Medanta-the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon and to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by her at the same hospital , which is to be calculated at the rate approved by the State Government or at the rates charged by private hospitals, recognized/approved by the State Government, in this case Apollo Hospital, New Delhi to which the petitioner was recommended for treatment by the State Medical Board, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.