JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner who is working as the Asst. Commandant 12th Bn. TSR, has given expression to his grievance in regard to denial of reimbursement of his medical bills to the extent of Rs.83,225/- which he defrayed in the Apollo hospital while he was escorting his ailing wife and suddenly fell seriously ill, the petitioner required medical intervention on emergency in the form of surgery of right hip Arthroscopic Synovial Biopsy. With the reimbursement bills as submitted by the petitioner, he had also appended one certificate dated 12.09.2015 issued by the Appollo hospital stating that the petitioner came for his wife's treatment and suddenly fell ill and he was immediately rushed to Dr. M. Madan Mohan Reddy, who has been working as the Surgeon in the Appollo hospital, for severe pain in right hip. He has been diagnosed right hip synovitis and the right hip arthoroscopic synovial biopsy was immediately required. At the medical advice, the petitioner had undergone the entire procedure and he spent the said amount as been as shown in the medical reimbursement bill which has been admittedly forwarded by the competent authority for the reason as reflected in the communication dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition). For purpose of reference the entire communication is extracted hereunder: “Government of Tripura Office of the Commandant, 12th Bn Tripura State Rifles (IR-VIII) TAC HQr, Chakmaghat: Khowai District, Tripura Phone/Fax No.03825 262007 No.9262/F.157 (4)/TSR-XII/Acctts/MRI/2009 Dated, the 05th November, 2015 To The Asstt. Inspr. General of Police (HQr) PHQ, Tripura Agartala Subject : Forwarding of Medical re-imbursement bill in respect of Shri Kallol Roy AC, 12th Bn TSR (IR-VIII). Sir, It is stated Smt Jali Roy W/O Shri Kallol Roy, Asstt. Comdt, of this unit was referred to CMC Vellore, Tamilnadu for treatment of Pelvic Endometriosis by the standing Medical Board of AGMC & GBP Hospital. An escort with the patient was also permitted by the Standing Medical Board of AGMC & GBP Hospital. While Shri Kallol Roy, AC was escorting his wife, suddenly he fell ill at Chennai and he consulted to DR. Madan Mohan Reddy, MS(ortho), F.R.C.S.(UK), MD(France) of Apollo Hospital, Chennai and got himself treated there. An escort with the patient was also permitted by the Standing Medical Board of AGMC & GBP Hospital. While Shri Kallol Roy, AC was escorting his wife, suddenly he fell ill at Chennai and he consulted to DR. Madan Mohan Reddy, MS(ortho), F.R.C.S.(UK), MD(France) of Apollo Hospital, Chennai and got himself treated there. In this Connection he submitted a medical bill duly certified by the Doctor of Apollo Hospital Chennai. A comparative statement of CGHS rate available is prepared and forwarded here with for your kind perusal and sanction from your end please. Enclo :-19 sheet in original Yours faithfully, (Tapan Kumar Debnath) Commandant 12th Battalion TSR (IR-VIII)” 3. Later on, the Inspector General of Police Headquarters forwarded the said bill by the communication dated 06.01.2016 to the Additional Secretary (Home) for sanction. But the communication dated 06.02.2016 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition) the Director General of Police was communicated as under: “The undersigned is directed to refer to your letter No.1134-35/ACCTS(38)/PHQ/13, (VOL-3)(LOOSE), dated 06th January, 2016 on the subject mentioned above and to inform you that the matter was taken up with Director-Health Service. As per views of Director Health Service, medical expenditure incurred by Sri Kallol Roy, Asstt. Commandant for his treatment at Apollo hospital Chennai is not reimbursable as per notification dated 25/10/2013 of Health Dept.(Copy enclosed).” 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner required immediate medical intervention and on the medical advice he underwent that surgery. As such, he was not in a position to follow the procedure, that is, of reference by the standing medical board to any referral hospital for such intervention, if not available in the state. 5. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the state-respondents has echoed the same analogy and she has further submitted that unless the procedure is followed, the exception cannot be made by the competent authority. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that having regard to the ratio laid down by the apex court in Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 , when it is emergent for saving life, immediate medical intervention is required, no person can be asked to follow the procedure at the risk of his life. In Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 , when it is emergent for saving life, immediate medical intervention is required, no person can be asked to follow the procedure at the risk of his life. In Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., the apex court has observed as under : “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-defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this great land conceived of such right had recognized it. ………… xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 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 the 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. On that hypothesis, it is fair and just that the respondents pay to the appellant, the rates admissible as per Escorts………..” [Emphasis added] 7. There is no dispute even from the respondents that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was at Chennai as he was escorting his ailing wife on reference made by the standing medical board. That time he suddenly fell ill and he was not in a position to travel back to the state for getting the reference, inasmuch as he was suffering from right hip arthroscopic right synovitis making him temporarily crippled from his mobility. That time he suddenly fell ill and he was not in a position to travel back to the state for getting the reference, inasmuch as he was suffering from right hip arthroscopic right synovitis making him temporarily crippled from his mobility. Surgical intervention called right hip Arthroscopies Synovial Biopsy was essentially required. Even this diagnosis is not under challenge from the respondents and the respondents have not stated whether such medical intervention is available in the state or not. Even if such medical procedure can be availed in the state then also it could not been have availed by the petitioner. 8. Having held so, this court does not have any other alternative but to observe that the petitioner is entitled to the medical reimbursement as he is entitled so under the provisions of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 as the petitioner is working under the gazetted establishment. But the reimbursement of the petitioner's medical bill shall be restricted to what a referral hospital would have charged for the similar treatment and for this matter, the competent authority shall ascertain that expenses having input from the Director of Health Services. But by any rate, reimbursement of the medical expenses in terms of this direction shall be made to the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) months from today. It goes without saying that the respondents will be entitled to verify the genuineness of the documents which might be submitted by the petitioner. 9. In the result, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of the order be furnished to Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents for onward transmission.