JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned G.A appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing order as contained in the letter No. P/5/2008DHS(Pt.VI)/2131 dated 2nd September, 2015 issued by the Director of Health Services, Manipur (Respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder respondent No.2 rejected the prayer for according ex-post facto sanction to the treatment given to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner, a Farash working in the High Court of Manipur, is that he after attending the duty at the residence of one of the Hon’ble retired Judges while was going home on 27.05.2015 by his bike and reached Village Game at 9:00 p.m. he was hit by a Bolero Jeep as a result of which the petitioner fell in a canal and become unconscious. Some of the bystanders who happened to be there took out the petitioner from the canal and took him to the Shija Hospitals & Research Institute where he was immediately admitted in ICU. It was found that his face had swollen and his lungs being clogged with water. After the treatment was given the petitioner regained consciousness at about 10:00 a.m. on 28.05.2015 and was shifted to general ward. He was treated for the injuries which he had suffered over his right knee, left cheek. When CT scan has done it was found that he is having left Zygoma fractured. On 28.05.2015 operation could not be done as his lungs were still clogged with water. Before the operation was done on 29.05.2015, the petitioner had underwent several tests and investigations. In that process the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs. 90,900/-. The petitioner was discharged from the said Hospital on 04.06.2015. 4. The petitioner upon being recovered applied for re-imbursement of the amount which had been incurred as expenses during treatment through the Registrar General, High Court of Manipur who forwarded it to the Director of health Services, Manipur. The matter was taken up by the State Medical Board in its meeting held on 27.08.2015. The Board turned down the request of the petitioner of re-imbursement of medical bills. The matter was taken up by the State Medical Board in its meeting held on 27.08.2015. The Board turned down the request of the petitioner of re-imbursement of medical bills. It was communicated by the Director of Health Services, Manipur to the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Manipur, Imphal wherein it was conveyed that the Board did not approve ex-post facto sanction for treatment of Road Traffic Accident with left Zygoma fracture at Shija Hospitals & Research Institute for the reason that Shija Hospitals & Research Institute, Langol is recognized only for medical reimbursement for operation relating to Neurosurgery case. Being aggrieved with that order this writ application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner met with an accident he fell in a canal and lost his consciousness. In that event some of the bystanders took the petitioner to Shija Hospitals & Research Institute so that life of the petitioner be saved. In such situation no one would even think to take the petitioner to Government Hospital first and then to higher centre upon case being referred to that hospital so that there may not be any problem in getting medical re-imbursement and thereby the refusal of the claim of medical re-imbursement is quite illegal and as such impugned order is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also of this Court submitted that in similar situation direction has been issued to the State authority to reimburse the amount which is legally and payable to the petitioner. In this regard learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 and also of this Court passed in W.P(C) No. 1036 of 2014 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A No. 43 of 2015. 6. As against this, Mr. A. Vashum, learned G.A appearing for the State respondents submits that admittedly, the petitioner was never treated in the Government Hospital when he met with an accident and fell in a canal and as such the petitioner would not be entitled to have that amount which is claimed for re-imbursement in terms of Office Memorandum issued by the State Government. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it be stated that there has not been denial of the facts that the petitioner on account of being met with an accident fell in a canal and became unconsciousness and that on finding the petitioner being unconscious some of the persons who were there removed him to Shija Hospitals & Research Institute where he underwent operation. In such situation, the persons finding the petitioner unconscious must have thought that the condition of the petitioner is serious. There the petitioner underwent several tests and when it was found that the petitioner has suffered fracture in left Zygoma, he was operated upon. When he got cured he submitted an application to the competent authority through the Registrar General, High Court of Manipur for re-imbursement of the amount which he had spent in getting treatment at Shija Hospitals & Research Institute. That prayer was rejected for the reason already stated hereinabove. Reason assigned never appears to be legal taking into account the provision as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It be stated 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 which has been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 wherein at para 12 which has been observed as under: “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. 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.” 8. Thus, it appears that in no uncertain term it has been spelt out 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 and for his self preservation one has right to take steps accordingly. On need not to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which makes its meeting difficult to happen and need not stand in queue in Government hospital and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court also in the case referred to hereinabove. 9. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the Health Services, Manipur as contained in letter dated 2nd September, 2015 (Annexure-A/4) is hereby quashed. Consequently, 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 at the rate being charged by a private hospital recognized/ approved by the State Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Thus, this writ petition stands allowed.