JUDGMENT : By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has asked for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide him the benefit of medical reimbursement bill in connection with the treatment of his wife at Apollo Hospital, Chennai in terms of the Memorandum issued under reference No.F.5(10)-Fin(G)/75-1 dated 09.08.2005 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance. 2. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, I have been compelled to reiterate an observation made by this Court in Uttam Pal vs. The State of Tripura & Ors. [WP© No.1479 of 2017], where a learned Single Judge(Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Ajay Rastogi, as he then was) has expressed his Lordship’s anguish the manner the Government employees of the State be forced to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. His Lordship’s expression in Uttam Pal’s case may be reproduced, here-in-below, for convenience, in verbatim: “1. This is a common complaint always made by a serving employee or a pensioner for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred for the treatment on himself or the family members who are covered for medical assistance and despite there are good numbers of judgments of the Apex Court and also by the High Court, this ongoing complaint is still not being attended by the Government which compelled the employees invoking jurisdiction of this Court u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India.” 3. In the instant case, under compelling circumstances and emergent situation, the wife of the petitioner was taken to the Apollo Hospital at Chennai for her appropriate treatment. While the petitioner was serving under the respondents as Naik(G.D.), Tripura State Rifles, he admitted his wife, Smt. Dipti Das as an indoor patient at AGMC & GBP Hospital, Govt. of Tripura with the complaint of chest pain and breathing problem. She was under treatment w.e.f. 23.06.2016 to 28.06.2016, whereafter she was discharged with certain advice relating to medicine, and further advised to attend Chest OPD(discharge certificate is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1). 4. Being her condition deteriorated alarmingly, the petitioner was compelled to fly to Chennai to get her treated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai in the first week of July, 2016. 4. Being her condition deteriorated alarmingly, the petitioner was compelled to fly to Chennai to get her treated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai in the first week of July, 2016. After her clinical examinations and tests it was detected that his wife was suffering from lung cancer, as a result of which she got admitted to the said hospital on 18.07.2016 when she underwent lung operation and discharged on 25.07.2016 with the diagnosis—“Synovial sarcoma of right lower lobe ostium secundum ASD”(copy of discharge certificate dated 25.07.2016 is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-2). 5. After being returned, the petitioner raised final medical reimbursement bill amounting to Rs.4,88,584.25 in connection with her stay at the hospital, treatment and operation as an indoor patient. The said medical imbursement claim was properly certified by the competent authority of the Apollo Hospital, Chennai which was duly supported by original bills and other documents in originals. He has stated in his petition that he was appropriately advised by the Doctors of AGMC & GBP Hospital that her wife was suffering from lung cancer and she was in need of surgical intervention immediately to save her life. After final detection, his wife was immediately advised to take admission and there was no scope to bring her back to Agartala for being referred by the State Referral Board, AGMC & GBP Hospital necessary for treatment to outside the State. However, the State Referral Board, AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala referred Smt. Dipti Das, the wife of the petitioner to Apollo Hospital, Chennai, Super Specialty Hospital for her cancer surgery by way of approving a post facto reference vide certificate dated 17.06.2017(referral certificate is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3). Further, the Medical Superintendent, Regional Cancer Centre, Agartala has also observed that the petitioner is entitled to reimburse medical bill spent out of the wife of the petitioner(Annexure-4 to the writ petition). 6. The Drawing & Disbursing Officer(DDO), 6th Bn. TSR vide letter dated 18.07.2018 informed the petitioner that his claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses was sent to PHQ for according expenditure sanction. Thereafter, the PHQ took up the matter with the Finance Department for sanction. But, the Finance Department had rejected the proposal of the Home Department on the ground, that, it is not covered by the existing rules(Annexure-5 to the writ petition). 7. Mr. Thereafter, the PHQ took up the matter with the Finance Department for sanction. But, the Finance Department had rejected the proposal of the Home Department on the ground, that, it is not covered by the existing rules(Annexure-5 to the writ petition). 7. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to reimburse the medical expenses which he incurred due to treatment of his wife at Apollo Hospital, Chennai because of the admitted position that the Standing Medical Board of the Government of Tripura has virtually referred the wife of the petitioner to the said hospital for her appropriate treatment as the facility of this kind of treatment is not available in the State hospitals. 8. Resisting the contentions of the writ petitioner, Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. in his usual fairness has agreed and admitted that since the Standing Medical Board of the Government of Tripura has referred the wife of the petitioner by way of making post facto reference, the petitioner is entitled to get the same benefit, and, when this Court has expressed its anguish, he contends that in future he will look into the matter to avoid any further harassment to any of the Government employees under the State of Tripura in the context of similar and identical circumstances. 9. However, to avoid any future complicacy, in this piquant situation, this Court has thought it fit to dispose of this writ petition in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as the High Courts. 10. I have perused the grounds of rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner by the Finance Department, though, the PHQ i.e. the employer of the petitioner has highly recommended the case of the petitioner stating inter alia that the petitioner is entitled to re-imburse medical expenses which he incurred due to the treatment of his wife at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. 11. 11. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner being a Group-C employee of the State of Tripura is guided by Memorandum dated 09.08.2005 and with reference to the said guideline the Finance Department has found that the claim of the petitioner is not covered by existing rules and it was returned to the petitioner in the following terms:- “Government of Tripura Office of the Commandant, 6 Bn Tripura State Rifles(IR-II) Ramchandraghat, Khowai Tripura No.336/TSR-6/MRI/Acctts/18/7077 Dated, the 18th July, 2018 To Naik(GD) Subal Das 6 Bn TSR, D-Coy Subject:- Return of medical re-imbursement bill with supporting documents. Your claim regarding refund of medical expenses incurred in connection with treatment of your wife has been sent to PHQ for according expenditure sanction of the competent authority. Further, PHQ had taken-up the matter with finance department for sanction. But the finance department, Govt. of Tripura has rejected the proposal of the department, since it is not covered by existing Rules. As such, the Medical re-imbursement bill along with supporting documents is returned to you as received. Enclo:- As stated above. Sd/- illegible (Kamal Debbarma), AC D.D.O 6 Bn Tripura State Rifles(IR-II) 12. A bare reading of the communication dated 18.07.2018 reveals that no reason has specifically been assigned as to why and how the claim of the writ petitioner is not covered by the existing rules. But, from the counter affidavit it is apparent that the “existing rules” means the Memorandum dated 09.08.2005 relating to the subject, “Medical Reimbursement facility to Group-“C” & “D” Government employees for treatment as referred case outside the State and also for treatment of Cancer in the Cancer hospital of the State.” For convenience, I deem it fit to reproduce the said Memorandum, in verbatim, as follows: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA FINANCE DEPARTMENT No.F.5(10)-Fin(G)/75-1 Dated, Agartala, the 9th August, 2005. MEMORANDUM Subject:- Medical Reimbursement facility to Group-“C” & “D” Government employees for treatment as referred case outside the State and also for treatment of Cancer in the Cancer hospital of the State. MEMORANDUM Subject:- Medical Reimbursement facility to Group-“C” & “D” Government employees for treatment as referred case outside the State and also for treatment of Cancer in the Cancer hospital of the State. Consequent upon issue of G.O. No.8 dated 25-9-2004 from the file No.2(10-23A)/MS/Estt/MR/2002(Part-III) of the Health & Family Welfare Department, a considerable number of cases are referred to the Finance Department from various Departments seeking concurrence/approval regarding admissibility of claims of medical reimbursement facilities of Group-C & D category of employees as cases of special dispensation even when the cases are referred by the State Medical Board in terms of para(I) of the said memo. On the other hand, certain clarifications were issued in the past from the Finance Department about admissibility of medical imbursement claim of Group-C & D employees under a few special exigencies. 2. Now it is felt that for quick disposal of the claims of medical reimbursement of Group-C & D employees admissible under aforesaid G.O. and circulars issued from the Finance Department, certain clarifications need to be issued. Accordingly, the undersigned is directed to issue following clarifications to facilitate quick disposal of the medical reimbursement claims of Group-C & D employees and for removing the ambiguities:- A.(i) When a Group-C Group-D Government employee himself/herself suffering from disease other than cancer is referred to Medical Institution/Hospital to which he/she is referred to, the cost of treatment in that Institution/Hospital excluding the cost of journey is admissible for reimbursement. This benefit is not admissible in respect of any member of the family of such a Government employee. (ii) When a Group-C Group-D Government employee himself/herself or any member of his/her family suffers from cancer and is referred to a medical Institution/Hospital outside the State by the Standing Medical Board the cost of treatment in such Institution/Hospital inclusive of admissible journey expenses only up to referred Institution/ hospital(both ways) is admissible for reimbursement. Journey expenses of the escort, if any recommended by the Standing Medical Board, is also admissible for reimbursement. (iii) Group-C/Group-D Government employee shall continue reimbursement of the cost of treatment of cancer for himself/herself and his/her members of the family for treatment in Cancer Hospital in the State vide Memo. No.F.5(2)-FIN(G)/93 dated 14.06.1996(Annexure-I). B. The reimbursement facility for implanting of pacemaker as provided in Memo. (iii) Group-C/Group-D Government employee shall continue reimbursement of the cost of treatment of cancer for himself/herself and his/her members of the family for treatment in Cancer Hospital in the State vide Memo. No.F.5(2)-FIN(G)/93 dated 14.06.1996(Annexure-I). B. The reimbursement facility for implanting of pacemaker as provided in Memo. No.5(2)-FIN(G)/93 dated 26.02.1996 (Annexure-II) and No.F.5(2)-FIN(G)/93 dated 24.05.1997 (Annexure-III) for Group-“C” & “D” employees shall continue to be admissible, subject to limit fixed therein. C. The reimbursement facility for injuries caused by extremist violence or injury sustained in course of discharge of official duties for Group-“C” & “D” employees as provided in Memo No.F.11(1)-FIN(G)/94 dated 23.02.1996(Annexure-IV), Memo of even No.18.03.1996(Annexure-V) and 07.06.1997(Annexure-VI) shall also continue to be admissible. Sd/- illegible Enclosed:- As stated (N. Das) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura” 13. Clause 2A(iii) particularly deals with ”reimbursement of the cost of treatment of cancer for an employee and the members of the family providing treatment in Cancer Hospital in the State” vide Memo.No.F.5(2)-FIN(G)/93 dated 14.06.1996(Annexure-I). The aforesaid clause crystallizes that if an employee of the State Government or any member of his family suffers from a disease of cancer, he has to be treated in the State Cancer Hospital. 14. Here, I should take judicial notice of the alarming state of affairs in providing medical facilities to the people of the State. I am constrained to observe that till now the State has failed to provide least infrastructural facilities to provide medical treatment to the citizens residing in the State. There are so many instances where due to lack of adequate infrastructures, the doctors fail to detect the exact disease a patient is suffering from, compelling the poor employees and other classes of citizens to go outside the State, even by way of selling or mortgaging their valuable properties. This is, indisputably, the practical scenario of the State. 15. I am not unmindful to the fact that the State has empanelled some of the hospitals outside the State of Tripura by issuing a notification, dated 25.10.2013 and vide that notification the following hospitals are included in the panel : (1) SSKM Hospital, Kolkata. (2) Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, Kolkata. (3) School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata. (4) Cancer Centre and Welfare Home, Thakurpukur, Kolkata. (5) Silchar Medical College & Hospital. (6) Sankar Deva Netralaya, Guwahati. (7) CMC Hospital, Vellore. (8) Care Hospital, Hyderabad. (2) Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, Kolkata. (3) School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata. (4) Cancer Centre and Welfare Home, Thakurpukur, Kolkata. (5) Silchar Medical College & Hospital. (6) Sankar Deva Netralaya, Guwahati. (7) CMC Hospital, Vellore. (8) Care Hospital, Hyderabad. (9) National Institute of Mental Health & Neuroscience, Bangalore. (10) AIIMS, New Delhi. 16. As we all know, that, all the said empanelled hospitals are crowded with patients and it is not always easy to get immediate treatment facility from those empanelled hospitals. There are so many occasions when situations appeared to be so emergent and precarious that a patient needs immediate care and treatment to save his/her life. At such situation, it will be inhuman to ask anyone to wait in queue to formalise the procedures stipulated in various guidelines of the Government at the cost of life. I am not oblivious of the fact that private and specialized hospitals sometimes raise exorbitant bills in respect of various tests, procedures for causing treatment. But, it is also to be kept in mind that considering the complexity of the disease, a patient sometimes may be put to undergo various tests to facilitate the proper treatment, the patient actually and accurately needs. 17. The concept of raising exorbitant bills at all cases or times should not always be taken into account with absolute rigidity, which sometimes may lead to deprivation of an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. Of course, the State functionaries had the right to examine the truthfulness and genuineness of the medical bills claimed for reimbursement. Further, as a welfare State, the concerned authorities and its functionaries should impart their utmost human and rational touch keeping in mind that right to life includes right to health and the word, “life” as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India means, a life of dignity and not just an animal life. In this approach, the State functionaries should not throw the medical reimbursement out of a genuine claim in a mechanical manner because right to life is one of the basic human rights. 18. At this juncture, I am fortified with a very significant observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1975 , wherein their Lordships have held as under: [MANU. 18. At this juncture, I am fortified with a very significant observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1975 , wherein their Lordships have held as under: [MANU. P.6, paras 13 and 14] “(13) It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the Petitioner forcing him to approach this Court. (14) This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the writ Petitioner was admitted in the above said hospitals in emergency conditions. Moreover, the law does not require that prior permission has to be taken in such situation where the survival of the person is the prime consideration. The doctors did his operation and had implanted CRT-D device and have done so as one essential and timely. Though it is the claim of the Respondent-State that the rates were exorbitant whereas the rates charged for such facility shall be only at the CGHS rates and that too after following a proper procedure given in the Circulars issued on time to time by the concerned Ministry, it also cannot be denied that the Petitioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions for survival of his life which requirement was above the sanctions and treatment in empanelled hospitals.” 19. Being returned to the admitted facts of the case, I have taken note that the Medical Superintendent of the office of the Regional Cancer Hospital, Agartala has certified that the wife of the petitioner, Smt. Dipti Das was suffering from lung cancer as it was diagnosed on 03.08.2016 by Apollo Hospital, Chennai. For convenience, the said certificate is reproduced here-in-below, in extenso: “Government of Tripura Office of the Medical Superintendent Regional Cancer Centre, Agartala. F.NO.4(4)-CH/MS/Gen/Corres Dated, Agartala the 17th June, 2017 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Dipti Das Signature of the patient This is to certify that Smt. Dipti Das, 30 yrs, W/O Shri Subal Das, Vill+P.O. Nalchar, P.S. Melagarh, Dist: Sepahijala, Pin-799115 whose signature is given above, has been suffering from Cancer of the Right Lung, Consistent with Synovial Sarcoma; diagnosed on 03/08/16, Biopsy No.ASH01.IHC 1602404, LRN 3873429 at Apollo Hospitals: 21 Greams Lane Off Greams Road, Chennai-600006 which is a referral institute of the State Govt. As per Govt. As per Govt. order No.F.2(10-23A)/MS/ESTT/MR/02/Part-1 date 20/12/2002 and Guwahati High Court Agartala Bench writ petition No.(c)194 of 2004 Smt. Dipti Das is entitled to draw Medical Reimbursement bills for her illness. Therefore, one postfacto Referral Certificate is issued in favour of her Medical Reimbursement claim which is certified by the undersigned. sd/- illegible (Dr. Gautam Majumdar) Medical Superintendent, Regional Cancer Centre, Agartala.” 20. In view of the said certificate, I have drawn my attention to the discharge certificate issued by the G.B. Pant Hospital & Medical College, Agartala, Government of Tripura, wherein I am surprised to note that even the doctors of the said hospital have failed to diagnose the actual disease of the wife of the petitioner and they found that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from some chest problem and she was advised to attend and appear before the Chest OPD. So, this is the saddest part of the affairs of the Government hospitals in the State of Tripura. 21. I have already observed that since the condition of the wife of the petitioner was gradually deteriorating, the petitioner took his wife to Apollo Hospital, where she was detected of being suffered with lung cancer and needed immediate surgical treatment. It was not possible at that stage for the petitioner to again come back to Agartala to complete the formalities in terms of the circulars in regard to reference certificate to any of the empanelled hospitals of the State. Furthermore, none of the empanelled hospitals, except AIIMS, Delhi, SSKM, Kolkata and CMC, Vellore, are having enough infrastructure facilities of treatment of cancer, but again, there would be long queue and to ask such kind of patient to wait his/her turn may lead him or her to death. 22. More so, clause 2A(iii) specifically speaks about the treatment of cancer at the Cancer Hospital in the State. The petitioner had no occasion to visit the State Cancer Hospital because of the fact that the G.B. Pant Hospital and Medical College, Government of Tripura, Agartala had even failed to detect the actual disease of the wife of the petitioner so that they could advise the wife of the petitioner to attend the Cancer Hospital of the State. The petitioner had no occasion to visit the State Cancer Hospital because of the fact that the G.B. Pant Hospital and Medical College, Government of Tripura, Agartala had even failed to detect the actual disease of the wife of the petitioner so that they could advise the wife of the petitioner to attend the Cancer Hospital of the State. Even though, in the event of such advice, the State Cancer Hospital has no such facility or infrastructure to provide the medical treatment as it was facilitated by the specialized hospital, like Apollo Hospital at Chennai. 23. Here, the writ petitioner has sought for the actual medical reimbursement bill. In my opinion, he should ask for even compensation due to failure of the Government hospital to diagnose and detect the actual disease of the wife of the petitioner. However, I refrain myself from awarding any compensation in absence of such claim of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition. 24. The enunciation of the principle and observation made by the Apex Court in Shiva Kant Jha(supra) emboldens me to observe that the authorities of the State Finance Department and other relevant functionaries of the State should be more responsive to their obligations to protect and secure the valuable life of employees serving the State and not just sitting over the representations and dispose of the medical reimbursement bills in a mechanical manner. This Court deprecates the role of the concerned authorities in the manner they have been dealing with the similar and identical matters. 25. The certificate dated 17.06.2017 as reproduced here-in-above, issued by the Medical Superintendent, Regional Cancer Centre, Agartala manifests that the petitioner is entitled to draw medical imbursement bills for the illness of his wife. In this certificate, he also has admitted that Apollo Hospitals, 21 Greams Lane Off Greams Road, Chennai-600006 is a referral institute of the State Government in regard to the treatment of cancer. Considering this aspect, the authority of the Regional Cancer Hospital has provided post facto referral certificate in favour of Smt. Dipti Das so that the petitioner can raise reimbursement claim from the appropriate authority. 26. While rejecting the medical bills of the wife of the writ petitioner, it is observed by this Court that the authorities concerned of the Finance Department even did not have the opportunity to give due importance to the said certificate. 26. While rejecting the medical bills of the wife of the writ petitioner, it is observed by this Court that the authorities concerned of the Finance Department even did not have the opportunity to give due importance to the said certificate. It proves their callousness for which they are liable to pay heavy cost as compensation, which, this Court may not hesitate to impose, if faced with similar situation in future. 27. While this Court was dealing with a writ petition relating to Uttam Pal (supra) had considered the notification dated 25.10.2013 which is meant for medical imbursement for Group-A and Group-B employees of the State, the learned Single Judge(Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi, as he then was) after perusal of the guidelines has held that such guidelines are always directory and not mandatory, meaning thereby that there may be variable circumstances when taking of treatment from approved hospitals may not be possible and not workable specially in the emergency cases and its exigencies. The said proposition in Uttam Pal (supra) has not been challenged by the State Government in any of the higher courts. 28. Though, in the context of the present case, the Apollo Hospital, Chennai is the empanelled referral hospital of the State Government as evinced from the certificate dated 17.07.2017, but, there may be a situation where an employee or any members of his/her family has to be shifted to any specialized hospital, which may not be an empanelled referral hospital under the State Government, in an “emergent” situation not attributable to anyone. In that event also, considering the facts and circumstances, and genuinity of the claim, the State has the obligation to reimburse the actual and accurate medical bills certified by the said private specialized hospital, keeping in mind the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India that right to life includes valuable right to health. 29. To determine the emergent and immediate exigencies, the authorities concerned must give rationale to each and every separate and variable circumstances following Wednesbury principle of Reasonableness so that it does not shock or hit the conscience of the court, in addition, with utmost humane touch. 30. I also may take judicial notice of the fact that everyday a number of patients are shifted to Kolkata or other empanelled hospitals in the country. 30. I also may take judicial notice of the fact that everyday a number of patients are shifted to Kolkata or other empanelled hospitals in the country. They are to wait for long queue and compelled to arrange treatment to other privately managed specialised hospitals. In my opinion, this is the high time to increase the number of specialised “referral hospitals” considering the lack of infrastructure and other facilities in the Government hospitals. 31. It should be kept in mind that the paramount consideration will be “emergency and its exigencies” considering a particular moment or situation faced by a patient, who may be an employee or family members of the employee. At the same time, this Court requests the State executives in the higher-ups of the administration to personally supervise these matters and not entirely depend upon the notes given by the staffs in the lower ranks, and furthermore, the officers should keep in mind the paramount considerations as are indicated above. 32. However, it is made clear that this order will not give an unfettered or unrestricted power to the State Government employees to flout the Government instructions and guidelines framed in regard to medical reimbursement keeping in view the established feature of our Constitution that every right have reasonable restrictions. 33. I further clarify that there should be clear distinction between the treatment in “normal course” and the treatment in case of “emergency or exigencies”. Taking queue from various earlier decisions of this Court and the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka & Anr. v. R. Vivekananda Swamy, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 328 , I hold that if an employee “in normal course” obtains treatment from a hospital of his choice, then, re-imbursement would be made limited to the extent of his/her entitlement within the parameters of the medical scheme introduced by the Govt. for the said purpose. 34. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, the communication dated 31.05.2018 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Home Department regretting the proposal of the Department and the communication dated 18.07.2018 issued by the DDO, 6th Bn. Tripura State Rifles(IR-II) in pursuance of the communication made by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner are quashed and set aside. 35. Tripura State Rifles(IR-II) in pursuance of the communication made by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner are quashed and set aside. 35. Accordingly, I direct the State-respondents, particularly, the respondent No.2, the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance to ensure payment by way of making reimbursement of the actual medical expenses of Rs.4,88,584.25 incurred by the writ petitioner for the treatment of his wife Smt. Dipti Das at Apollo Hospital, Chennai within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the said actual amount will carry interest at the rate of 6(six) percent per annum. 36. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and stands disposed.