JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Writ petition, with the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. Rejection of claim for medical reimbursement in lieu of treatment of petitioner's son by Director Finance PW (R & B) Department, J & K Government, conveyed vide letter/order dated 28th January, 2010, is the reason forcing petitioner to knock at portals of this Court with instant writ petition, praying following relief: "i. Allow this writ petition of the petitioner. ii. Issue writ of certiorari quashing communication No. PW-(R & B)/MC/2009-10/259, dated 28.01.2010, issued from the office of respondent No. 3 and addressed to respondent No. 4 as well as decision of respondent No. 2 regarding rejection of the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner in respect of the treatment of his son, undertaken outside the State in view of seriousness of the disease. iii. Issue writ of Mandamus commanding the official respondents to reconsider the matter on the analogy of similarly situated cases, wherein reimbursement of the claim has been allowed. iv. Any other writ, order, command or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 3. Petitioner's son. It is said, had developed neurology problem. To come out of this situation, petitioner took his son to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), on 24.04.2008. However, name of the son of petitioner was kept in waiting list, at serial No. 2764, with proposed day of admission reflected as in the month of December 2008, i.e. after a gap of almost 8 months. Crucial circumstances faced by petitioner's son, compelled petitioner to visit another private hospital, namely, Paras Hospital Gurgaon Haryana, where his son was operated upon as per the date of admission reflected in the medical record, i.e. 28.04.2008 and was discharged from the said hospital on 12.05.2008. Further contention of petitioner is that subsequent to the surgery, petitioner expended Rs. 1,79,900/- as per the bill, issued by the said hospital. The claim projected by petitioner for medical reimbursement was placed before Medical Reimbursement Verification Committee, constituted by Director Health Services Jammu. Further contention of petitioner is that subsequent to the surgery, petitioner expended Rs. 1,79,900/- as per the bill, issued by the said hospital. The claim projected by petitioner for medical reimbursement was placed before Medical Reimbursement Verification Committee, constituted by Director Health Services Jammu. A communication dated 27.05.2009 was issued by the Director Health Services Jammu conveying that the Committee found the treatment and bill as genuine and Director Health Services Jammu forwarded the case for reimbursement under rules as per the rates of AIIMS New Delhi. However, Director Finance PW (R & B), has rejected medical claim vide impugned letter/order dated 28.01.2010, which is the subject matter of challenge in present writ petition. 4. Justification for rejection of petitioner's claim for medical reimbursement by respondents in their Reply in opposition to writ petition, has been rested primarily on two grounds: petitioner had got treatment at private hospital without approaching the government empaneled hospital; and without getting recommendation from competent authority. 5. Respondents in pursuance to order dated 28.02.2012 have filed latest affidavit, again rejecting petitioner's claim on premise that the plea, projected in instant writ petition, has already been considered by this Court before passing order dated 28.02.2012. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Petitioner's counsel has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 28.02.2012, passed by this Court, directing respondents for reconsideration of release of the amount covered by medical reimbursement bill notwithstanding earlier order of rejection dated 28.01.2010. A meticulous read-through of the order dated 28.01.2010 portrays that this Court has rejected respondents' contention qua petitioner not having approached the government empaneled hospital before undertaking his son's surgery at Paras Hospital, Gurgaon. Thus, it is apt to reproduce order dated 28.02.2012 as under: "a. Claim of petitioner for reimbursement of Medical claim for expenses incurred on the treatment of his son, namely, Sawan Kumar Sen at PARAS Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana, was disallowed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Government in the Finance Department vide Director Finance, PWD (R & B)S communication No. PW-R & B/MC/2009-10/259, dated 28.01.2010, aggrieved whereby he has approached this Court seeking direction against the State-respondents to pay him the amount spent on the medical treatment of his son. b. Although State respondents contest the petitioner's claim in their response to the writ petition, yet the learned counsel for the State respondents in all fairness submitted that rejection of petitioner's claim by the Finance Department may not be justified in view of the report of Medical Reimbursement Verification Committee of the Directorate of Health services, Jammu certifying the claim to be genuine, in that, the rules governing reimbursement of medical claims need not be operated in such a way that the benefit of medical reimbursement was disallowed even in those cases where genuineness of the claim was beyond any doubt. c. Appreciating the fair statement made by learned State counsel, I am of the view that the rules governing reimbursement of the medical claims need to be operated in such a way that the benefit intended to be given to the government servants was provided to them operating the rules adopting a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach ensuring that genuine cases where the claim was otherwise certified by the governmental agencies as genuine, were accepted dispensing with strict application of rules and considering relaxation thereof wherever needed. d. The view taken by the Finance Department in rejecting petitioner's claim proceeding on the premise that the petitioner's son had taken treatment in a non-empanelled Hospital and without any reference from the Doctor attending on him in the State, is too pedantic to be accepted, in that, the Directorate of Health Services. Jammu's Medical Reimbursement Verification Committee's Report of genuineness of petitioner's reimbursement claim does not appear to have been considered by the Finance Department to consider relaxation of rules because the facts of the case indicate that the ailing son of the petitioner who had initially tried for admission in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi, could not have waited too long for his treatment, for, such a course would have been at the cost of deterioration of the petitioner's son's health. e. The State Government in the Finance Department, is, therefore, required to reconsider grant of sanction for release of the amount covered by the reimbursement Bill submitted by the petitioner without any further loss of time. Secretary to Government, Finance department to file affidavit indicating the decision taken in this behalf. f. Affidavit be filed within three weeks." 8. e. The State Government in the Finance Department, is, therefore, required to reconsider grant of sanction for release of the amount covered by the reimbursement Bill submitted by the petitioner without any further loss of time. Secretary to Government, Finance department to file affidavit indicating the decision taken in this behalf. f. Affidavit be filed within three weeks." 8. It is an admitted fact that petitioner had earlier approached AHMS, New Delhi, for treatment of his son in Department of Neurology on 24.04.2008, but non-availability of facilities at that particular time and the hospital authorities having kept the name of petitioner's son in waiting list at Serial No. 2764 inasmuch as proposed day for admission was conveyed to be in the month of December 2008. i.e. after a gap of almost 8 months, but given the deteriorated condition of his son, and in order to save the life of his son he got his son's surgery done at a private Hospital, i.e. Paras Hospital, Gurgaon, between 28.04.2008 to 12.05.2008. Learned counsel for petitioner, in buttressing petitioner's case, has place reliance upon judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 1996 (2) SCC 336 . Keeping in view whole gamut of controversy involved in the case in hand, relevant excerpt of the judgment is profitable to be reproduced hereunder: "11. The appellant there fore 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, bare-facedly, 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 alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognized 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 the Escorts like many others did, to save his life. But instead be 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 the Escorts like many others did, to save his life. But instead be 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 him 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." 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of J & K v. Popinder Singh reported as 2015 (4) JKJ 22 [HC], wherein the Division Bench has been pleased to hold: 6. On perusal of the above rule it is crystal clear that a Government servant can take treatment in a hospital outside the State if there is any emergency and the same is certified by the competent authority. The Government is also vested with the power to grant relaxation of the rigor of the rule if there is a technical violation, even if it is established. The Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 reads as follows:- "(ii) Power to relax:- Where the Government is satisfied that the operation, if any, of these rules has caused undue hardship in particular case, it may by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exception and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Finance Department."..... 8. Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Finance Department."..... 8. In the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 5 SCC 328 (State of Karnataka and Anr. v. R. Vivekananda Swamy), the claim of medical reimbursement of a Government servant of Stale of Karnataka and a District Judge of the State of Rajasthan came up for consideration. In the said judgment the necessity to have the treatment emergently, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is emphasized. In paragraph 21 it is held thus:- "21. In Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (1996) 2 SCC 336 this Court in a case where the appellant therein while in England fell ill and being a case of emergency case was admitted in Dudley Road Hospital. Birmingham. After proper medical diagnosis he was suggested treatment at a named alternate place. He was admitted and undergone by pass surgery in Humana Hospital, Wellington, London. He claimed reimbursement for the amount spent by him. In the peculiar facts of that case it was held: "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 duly and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to verses 17, 18, 20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine: 17. Vinaa dehena kasyaapi canpurushaartho na vidyate Tasmaaddeham dhanam rakshetpunyakarmaani saadhayet Without the body how can one obtain the objects of human life? Therefore, protecting the body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit. 18. Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya bhaajanam Raksh-ane yatnamaatishthejje vanbhaadraani pashyati One should protect his body which is responsible for everything. He who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life. 20. Shanrarakshanopaayaah kriyante sarvadaa budhaih Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi kushthaadiroginah. The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. 18. Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya bhaajanam Raksh-ane yatnamaatishthejje vanbhaadraani pashyati One should protect his body which is responsible for everything. He who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life. 20. Shanrarakshanopaayaah kriyante sarvadaa budhaih Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi kushthaadiroginah. The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. Even the persons suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid of the body. 22. Aatmaiva yadi naatmaanamahitebhyo nivaarayet Konsyo hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati. If one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is good to himself." 10. The bottom line that percolates from above discussion and the law laid down in this regard by the Supreme Court, fortifies the view that rejection of petitioner's claim for medical reimbursement is not in accordance with law as petitioner's son, who had been initially taken to AIIMS, was not given admission on the said date, rather was asked to wait for about eight months, which could have put his son to peril, thus petitioner was left with no remedy except going to private Hospital, namely, Paras Hospital Gurgaon Haryana, where his son was admitted on 28.04.2008 and discharged on 12.05.2008. In addition to this, when the medical reimbursement bill submitted by petitioner has been duly approved by Medical Reimbursement Verification Committee of Director Health Services, Jammu, as per the rates of the AIIMS, there remains no justification for denying petitioner's claim for medical reimbursement. 11. Viewed thus, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to release the medical reimbursement claim as per the rates of the AIIMS along with the admissible interest under law. Let this exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Disposed of as above along with connected MP(s).