JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. L. Somorendro Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Vasum, learned GA for the State. 2. This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse a sum of Rs.4,24,263/- as medical and room rent charges incurred during treatment of petitioner’s husband who had been suffering from cancer. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, late Kshetrimayum Kunjakeshwor Singh, was working in Water Supply Maintenance Division-II, PHED, Govt. of Manipur as Jr. Supervisor. During employment it was detected that Kshetrimayum Kunjakeshwor Singh is suffering from Cancer. Thereupon he was allowed to have treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital. When petitioner’s husband was taken to Tata Memorial Hospital it was found that number of persons are in queue waiting to their turn to come for operation. Since the condition of the husband of the petitioner was so precarious they did not think it proper to wait for their turn to come and hence decided in order to save life to have surgery at Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai and accordingly petitioner’s husband underwent surgery over there. 4. After coming home application was submitted for granting post facto sanction of the treatment extended at Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai for sanctioning a sum of Rs.4,24,263/- which was spent as medical expenses. But the Medical Board refused to grant post facto sanction for the treatment at Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai for the reasons that the centre is recognized for only Coronary Bypass Surgery but not for the treatment of Cancer. Whereas Medical Board had granted post facto sanction to the treatment of same ailment for another person, namely Shri N. Sashilkumar Singh, FA. 5. Being aggrieved with that order of the Medical Board this application has been filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when it was detected that the husband of the petitioner is suffering from Cancer the petitioner with the approval of the State Authority took her husband to Tata Memorial Hospital where it was found that number of persons are in queue and as such the turn of the petitioner’s husband was not likely to come in the near future and therefore keeping in view the precarious condition of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner took her husband to Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai where the petitioner’s husband underwent surgery but unfortunately he died. Thereafter, when the bills were produced for its reimbursement the State Authority refused to grant post facto sanction which is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside. In this regard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also of this Court submits that in similarly situated cases direction had been issued to the State Authority to reimburse the amount which is legally 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 reported in 1996 (2) SCC 356 and 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. 7. As against this learned State counsel, Mr. A. Vasum, submits that he was suppose to file counter affidavit in this case but the same could not be filed and therefore matter be posted for other day so that this court may take into account the statements pleaded in the counter affidavit. At this stage I allow Mr. A. Vasum to take his stand which is there in the statement of facts so that it may be taken into account even in absence of any counter affidavit. 8. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner would not be entitled to have that amount which is claimed for reimbursement in terms of the office memorandum issued by the State Government from time to time. In this regard it was further submitted that the hospital where the petitioner’s husband underwent surgery for cancer is not impaneled hospital in the list maintained by the State Government and thereby this writ application is fit to be rejected. Learned counsel further submits that post facto sanction had been accorded to the treatment of one person, namely Shri N. Sashilkumar Singh, FA given at Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai but that order was subsequently cancelled. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it be stated that there has been no denial of the fact that petitioner’s husband, who had been suffering from cancer, underwent surgery at Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai but that order was subsequently cancelled. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it be stated that there has been no denial of the fact that petitioner’s husband, who had been suffering from cancer, underwent surgery at Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact the husband of the petitioner was taken to Tata Memorial Hospital where lot of persons were in queue and thereby no chances were there to have operation in near future and therefore the husband of the petitioner was taken to Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Mumbai where he underwent surgery but unfortunately petitioner’s husband died. Thereafter the petitioner did submit bills to the extent of Rs.4,24,263/- for its reimbursement which the petitioner had spent in getting operation done in the aforesaid hospital. That prayer was rejected on the ground as stated above but the reasons assigned never appears to be legal taking into account the provisions 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 it has been observed as follows: “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.” 10. 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. One need not to stand in queue in Government Hospital and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital. Under such circumstances, the order/letter dated 10 September, 2013 passed by the Director Health Services, Manipur as contained in letter No. P/5/2008-DHS (Pt. III), Annexure-A/13 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 the private hospital recognized/approved by the State Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. This writ application stands allowed.