JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sahil, appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to reimburse the medical bill of Rs. 4,25,280/- expended for treatment of wife of the petitioner. It is averred in the writ petition that petitioner was a permanent Government employee and after serving the department at various places, he retired on 31.01.2007 from the post of Technical Assistant to the Chief Engineer (C.D.O.), Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Wife of the petitioner was suffering from serious kidney problem and she was treated at P.M.C.H., Patna, where doctors diagnosed that she was suffering from chronic renal failure and as such on 30.10.1998, they recommended for her treatment at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. After that petitioner applied before the Medical Board, Patna for permission with respect to treatment of his wife at AIIMS, New Delhi. Pursuant to that, on 18.11.1998, the Medical Board granted permission to the petitioner for treatment of his wife at AIIMS, New Delhi, but, as the condition of his wife was deteriorating day by day and it was not possible to get appointment at AIIMS, New Delhi easily, the petitioner took her to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, where transplant was done on 14.01.2000. After the transplant, petitioner submitted medical bill of Rs. 4,25,280/- for reimbursement before the competent authority on 04.5.2000. In the meantime, State of Jharkhand came into existence and petitioner’s services were placed with Government of Jhakhand, after which, inspite of several representations by the petitioner before the competent authority, said amount has not been reimbursed as yet to the petitioner. By letter dated 16.3.2005, petitioner was intimated that file relating to the reimbursement of medical bill has been received. Vide letter dated 06.2.2007, the Government of Jharkhand intimated the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi that the post facto approval of the treatment of the wife of the petitioner at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad has been granted and accordingly reimbursement of the medical bill will be made to the petitioner. However, inspite of sanction of the said amount by the competent authority, inspite of lapse of two years, nothing has been heard from the respondents. 3. Mr. However, inspite of sanction of the said amount by the competent authority, inspite of lapse of two years, nothing has been heard from the respondents. 3. Mr. Sahil, A.C. to G.A.II, appearing for the respondent State, submits that as per the Government Circular regarding reimbursement of medical bills, the bills should be counter signed by the Head of the Institute. He further submits that Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna has not sent said medical bills and in absence of original Medical bill, it is not possible to get the bill countersigned by the Officer on Special Duty, Medical Board/Health Department. He further submits that the petitioner got her wife treated in an unauthorised hospital, namely, Apollo Hospital, which is not an empaneled hospital under the State of Jharkhand. 4. This Court has perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State of Jharkhand wherein, in Para 18, it is admitted that the petitioners claim seems to be genuine, but the department is handicapped due to Government orders. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the department of Health, Bihar, Patna had recently informed vide Letter dated 07.01.2010 to the answering respondents that the original medical bill is not available with them. Only on these grounds sanctioned amount is not being paid to the petitioner. Law operating in this context and relevant in this case, as propounded by the courts from time to time and as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SURJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 , Paragraph 11, is quoted hereunder: “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-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. The importance and validity of the duty 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 dhena 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 Rakshyetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya bhaajanam Rakshane 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 Sharirarakshanopaayaah 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” It is a common knowledge that with rapid advancement in medical science, a number of specialised medical institutions are coming up. This is happening more in private sector and Government institutions, somehow, are not able to compete for various reasons. If the best possible treatment is available only in Private Sector and if the petitioner had no other option but to avail such facilities for his wife, medical reimbursement cannot be denied only on the ground that the institution offering such treatment is not an empanelled hospital of the Government. It is well known that it is very difficult to get admission in AIIMS, New Delhi and in such a situation, if the petitioner approached Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment of a chronic disease like kidney failure of his wife, not allowing medical reimbursement on that ground is not tenable so far as a Government Servant is concerned and that too by the State, which is a model employer. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the bill has been received, but the original bill has not been received from the State of Bihar. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the bill has been received, but the original bill has not been received from the State of Bihar. As it is also stated in the counter affidavit that recently State of Bihar had intimated that original bill is not with them. The stand of the State of Bihar is that the photocopy of the medical bill had been sent to the State of Jharkhand after getting it copied from the original bill. At this stage, if original bill is not with the State of Bihar, on that ground petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner went for treatment only after the Medical Board, Patna granted permission and in one of the letters it is submitted that the Accountant General has been intimated that the said amount is required to be released in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above fact, stand of the State of Jharkhand is preposterous. 5. As a cumulative effect of the above facts, reasons, judicial pronouncement and looking into the records, the State of Jharkhand is directed to release the said amount in favour of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Court further finds that claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the bill has been sanctioned by the State of Jharkhand and inspite of that the payment has not been made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court awards interest at the rate of 6%, due to the petitioner from the date of his submission of the medical bill till the date of this order. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and observation.