JUDGMENT : AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J. 1. This petition is filed by the husband of the deceased Government servant. He has claimed reimbursement of medical bill of Rs.3,60,461/- and TA bill of Rs.55,516/- with interest. 2. Brief facts are as under: The wife of the petitioner was serving as Panchayat Secretary under the department of Panchayat, State of Tripura. In the last week of January, 2014 she suddenly became ill. She was admitted in ILS hospital, Agartala on 26.01.2014 as an indoor patient for 5 days. The Medical Officer of ILS hospital, Agartala issued a certificate on 30.01.2014 that she was treated for "Generalised B/L Lymphadenopathy with Severe anaemia and mild hemolytic jaundice from 26.01.2014 to 30.01.2014." He further certified that she may go outside the State for better management of her illness. According to the petitioner, the condition of his wife was very critical. She was therefore taken by air to Bangalore where she was admitted in MS Ramiyya Medical College and Hospital on 01.02.2014. At the said hospital she was detected with blood cancer. She was treated at Bangalore intermittently as indoor and outdoor patient till she succumbed to her illness on 19.08.2014. 3. The petitioner presented to the State Government necessary medical and TA reimbursement bills which according to the petitioner were in terms of the Government circulars issued from time to time. The same was done by the petitioner in August, 2014. The first response of the respondents came on 19.08.2017 when the Block Development Officer conveyed to the petitioner that he had submitted the medical reimbursement bill without certificate for referral outside the State issued by the State Referral Board, hence as per the guidelines of finance department such bills cannot be processed. He was requested to submit such referral certificate so that the bills can be processed further. 4. On 05.04.2019 the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Director of Panchayat pointing out the background in which his wife had to be rushed to Bangalore for urgent treatment. He pointed out that his medical bills were pending since over 4 years. He had to sell of his immovable property to meet with the expenditure. He urged the said authority to clear the bills urgently. 5. On 04.05.2019 the Additional Director of Panchayat wrote to the Block Development Officer requesting him to look into the matter of the petitioner's claim of medical reimbursement. He had to sell of his immovable property to meet with the expenditure. He urged the said authority to clear the bills urgently. 5. On 04.05.2019 the Additional Director of Panchayat wrote to the Block Development Officer requesting him to look into the matter of the petitioner's claim of medical reimbursement. Since after that there was no further progress in the matter, the petitioner filed this petition. 6. Considering the small issue involved, I have heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's wife suddenly suffered from serious illness. After brief treatment at the local hospital she had to be shifted to a hospital in Bangalore for further better treatment. In fact this was also suggested by the Medical Officer of ILS hospital, Agartala. The wife of the petitioner was extremely weak. Petitioner did not have opportunity to present her before the Medical Board for a referral order. Subsequent events would show that wife of the petitioner was suffering from a serious ailment. She never recovered from the disease. The respondents have raised an invalid objection of no prior referral order before taking the patient for treatment outside the State. 7. On the other hand, Mr. D. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that as per the instruction of finance department medical reimbursement for treatment outside the State can be granted only if there is a prior referral order from the Medical Board which in the present case was not presented by the petitioner. 8. Facts of the case are glaring and unfortunate. The wife of the petitioner a Government servant was suddenly taken ill in the last week of January, 2014. She was admitted in the local hospital. The Medical Officer of the said hospital i.e. ILS hospital, Agartala also opined that she has to be taken outside the State for better treatment and management of illness. In any case looking to the deteriorating condition of the patient the family decided to immediately airlift her to Bangalore where further investigation revealed that she was suffering from blood cancer. Continued treatment for several months yielded no result and eventually the wife of the petitioner expired on 19.08.2014. Soon after the death of the wife, the petitioner presented the medical bills as also the TA bills. 9. Continued treatment for several months yielded no result and eventually the wife of the petitioner expired on 19.08.2014. Soon after the death of the wife, the petitioner presented the medical bills as also the TA bills. 9. For nearly 3 years there was no response from the Government. The first response came from the Block Development Officer under letter dated 19.08.2017 conveying to the petitioner that the reimbursement claims are not backed by prior referral order from the Medical Board. It is not clear whether the said letter was actually received by the petitioner since in the representation dated 05.04.2019 the petitioner has not made any reference to this communication and in fact contended before the Director of Panchayat that the reimbursement bills are pending since over 4 years. Even when the Director of Panchayat wrote to the Block Development Officer on 04.05.2019 to look into the matter, there was no further response from the said office. 10. For multiple reasons the approach of the respondent-authorities must be deprecated. Whatever the stand of the respondents, in a matter of reimbursement of medical bills, the authorities simply cannot take 3 years time to make the first response. If according to the respondents the medical bills were not payable the answer should have been given promptly. 3 years in any case is inordinately long time to give such a simple answer. The Block Development Officer merely conveyed to the petitioner that his reimbursement claims were not accompanied by a referral order of the Medical Board. I fail to appreciate why such a simple answer took 3 years for the said authority to give to the petitioner. 11. The matter does not end here. The Director of Panchayat wrote to the Block Development Officer to look into the case of the petitioner. Thereafter also there was no response from the said officer. Even on merits the stand of the respondents is totally unjust and invalid. The wife of the petitioner showed symptoms of serious illness. She was admitted to a local hospital where after 5 days of treatment the Medical Officer opined that she needs to be taken outside the State for better treatment. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner took his wife for urgent treatment to a hospital at Bangalore. The events which followed clearly show that the anxiety shown by the family was perfectly justified. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner took his wife for urgent treatment to a hospital at Bangalore. The events which followed clearly show that the anxiety shown by the family was perfectly justified. The wife of the petitioner was detected with blood cancer out of which she never really recovered. During treatment itself few months later she expired on 19.08.2014. To expect the Government servant to present herself before the Medical Board for a referral order under such circumstances is totally unreasonable and stretching the requirement of referral order for medical reimbursement to its unreasonable level. 12. The insistence on referral by the Medical Board before treatment can be obtained outside the State may have a salutary purpose of ensuring that undeserving cases do not pass the muster. However, such requirement can be applied only in a reasonable manner and wherever this formula of prior referral order fails on account of extraordinary circumstances, insistence on its rigid implementation simply cannot be countenanced. 13. In a recent judgment dated 05.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 830 of 2019 the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement in absence of prior referral order was allowed by the Court. It was a case in which the petitioner Government servant was detected with colon cancer. He was operated at TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai which surgery was followed by multiple cycles of chemotherapy. His medical reimbursement bills were rejected on the ground that he had not obtained prior referral order. The petitioner had pointed out that subsequently whenever he had gone to take follow-up treatment at TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, he had approached the Medical Board and referral orders were passed. Based on such facts, this Court had quashed the decision of the Government of not clearing the medical bills. The following observations may be noted: "The circumstances under which the petitioner had to take immediate treatment at TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai can be recorded in some detail. In the petition, the petitioner has given the history of his ailment and the treatment that he received at Mumbai and with respect to which no dispute has been raised by the respondents. The averments made by the petitioner in the petition read as under: "3. That, in the middle of 2014, the Petitioner suffered sudden rapid loss of body weight accompanied by very low level of hemoglobin. Initially the Petitioner consulted with Dr. The averments made by the petitioner in the petition read as under: "3. That, in the middle of 2014, the Petitioner suffered sudden rapid loss of body weight accompanied by very low level of hemoglobin. Initially the Petitioner consulted with Dr. Susanta Sen, Diabetologist and as per his advice took medicine including Iron Tablets. But even after taking the medicines as prescribed by Dr. Susanta Sen, condition of the Petitioner further deteriorated. The body weight of the Petitioner came down from 65 kg to 45 kg. The Petitioner attended outdoor of AGMC and GBP Hospital. The Petitioner also consulted Dr. Rajesh Debbarma, M.D. Medicine. The Petitioner had to take admission to AGMC and GBP Hospital on 12.11.2014. The Petitioner was discharged on 15.12.2014. In the discharge certificate issued by the AGMC & GBP Hospital it was mentioned, that, the Petitioner was suffering from Iron deficiency anemia. A copy of the discharge certificate is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 1. 4. That, after discharge from GBP Hospital, the Petitioner noticed fresh blood coming out with his stool. Then the Petitioner again reported to AGMC and GBP Hospital. On 11.11.2014, the Petitioner was advised for colonoscopy. Accordingly the Petitioner underwent colonoscopy at GBP Hospital on 19.11.2014. Report of the colonoscopy suggested "carcinoma of colon". A copy of the requisition slip for colonoscopy & report of colonoscopy are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 2 collectively. 5. That, when colonoscopy report indicated that, the Petitioner has been suffering from carcinoma of transverse colon the Petitioner became unnerved. Well wishers and friends of the Petitioner advised the Petitioner to rush immediately to the TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai for availing best treatment available in the century for cancer patient. Accordingly, the Petitioner being accompanied by his wife and other family members went to Mumbai in the 1st Week of December, 2014. The Petitioner could not avail treatment at TATA Memorial Hospital due to the heavy rush. The Petitioner availed treatment at Seven Hills Hospital, Mumbai and the Petitioner underwent colon surgery on 09.12.2014 and later on chemo port was fitted under the chest of the Petitioner through surgical procedure. The Petitioner was administered 12 doses of chemotherapy during the period of 28.01.2015 to 21.07.2015. 6. That, thereafter, the Petitioner submitted two MR Bills for Rs. 1,92,742.68/- & Rs. 1,79,486.74, in total Rs. 3,72,229.42/- to the then Director of School Education, through proper channel. The Petitioner was administered 12 doses of chemotherapy during the period of 28.01.2015 to 21.07.2015. 6. That, thereafter, the Petitioner submitted two MR Bills for Rs. 1,92,742.68/- & Rs. 1,79,486.74, in total Rs. 3,72,229.42/- to the then Director of School Education, through proper channel. Along with two bills the Petitioner submitted all necessary vouchers, documents, cash memos related to his treatment at Seven Hills Hospital, Mumbai, being authenticated by the competent authority of the said Hospital. By forwarding letter, dated, 29.09.2015, the Petitioner submitted two MR Bills for Rs. 1,92,742.68/- & Rs. 1,79,486.74, in total Rs. 3,72,229.42/-. A copy of the letter, dated, 29.09.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 3." It can thus be seen that initial symptoms of the disease were that the petitioner suffered rapid weight loss coupled with drastic depletion of level of Hemoglobin in his blood. The petitioner lost close to 20 kgs of weight in a short span. With these complaints when the petitioner approached the GBP Hospital, the medical opinion was that the petitioner was suffering from iron deficiency anemia. The petitioner thereafter noticed that he was passing blood in the stool upon which he once again approached the GBP Hospital on 11.11.2014 when he was advised colonoscopy which was performed on 19.11.2014. The colonoscopy revealed that the petitioner had possible colon cancer. Under the advice of friends and well-wishers, therefore, he immediately rushed to the TATA Memorial Hospital at Mumbai for availing best treatment of cancer. He was operated on 09.12.2014 and 12 cycles of chemotherapy were administered between 28.01.2015 to 21.07.2015. The respondents do not dispute the medical expenditure. They only argue that because prior referral order from the Medical Board was not obtained, such bills cannot be passed. In my opinion, in facts of the present case, such objection is totally invalid. As noted, initially the petitioner suffered from weight loss and low hemoglobin in his blood. The fact that he was suffering from cancer was not detected at that stage. When he went back to the doctors with a complaint of passing blood in his stool, colonoscopy was advised which when performed revealed that he was suffering from colon cancer. Considerable time thus was already lost between the petitioner reporting early symptoms of a possible serious ailment and actual detection of the fact that he was suffering from cancer. When he went back to the doctors with a complaint of passing blood in his stool, colonoscopy was advised which when performed revealed that he was suffering from colon cancer. Considerable time thus was already lost between the petitioner reporting early symptoms of a possible serious ailment and actual detection of the fact that he was suffering from cancer. He, therefore, had every reason to rush for best medical advice and treatment for such life threatening and dreaded disease. At such stage to expect him to apply, await and appear before the Medical Board and obtain a referral order before proceeding for the treatment is an unreasonable expectation. The respondents do not even dispute that had he appeared before the Medical Board, such reference would have been made. They only argue that the petitioner did not obtain a prior order of reference. The fact that on each subsequent occasion when the petitioner had the opportunity he applied to the Medical Board and referral orders were duly passed itself is an evidence of the justification of the petitioner obtaining medical treatment from outside State hospital. The Supreme Court in case of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 had in somewhat similar circumstances made following observations: "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 recognized 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 rakshetpunyakar maani 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 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. Therefore protecting the body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit. 18. Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa 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 naatmaanama hitebhyo nivaarayet Konsyo hitakarastasmaa-daatmaanam taarayishyati If one does not prevent what is unpleasent to himself, who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is good to himself. 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. 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. 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." Similar view is expressed by this Court on number of occasions granting relief to the Government servants. Reference in this respect can be made to the following decisions: Judgment dated 18.08.2016 in case of Sri Kallol Roy vrs. The State of Tripura & others in W.P.(C) No. 277 of 2016, judgment dated 04.05.2018 in case of Sri Uttam Pal vrs. The State of Tripura & others in W.P.(C) No. 1479 of 2017 and judgment dated 27.03.2019 in case of Sri Subal Das vrs. The State of Tripura & others in W.P.(C) No. 895 of 2018. In the result, the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner's medical bills in question as permissible. Such payment shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% from the date of completion of 3(three) months of presentation of bills till actual payment. Entire payment be made within a period of 2(two) months from today. Petition is disposed of accordingly." 14. Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to process the medical and TA bills presented by the petitioner for the treatment of his wife. To the extent the Rules permit reimbursement thereof the same shall be cleared without insisting on prior referral order from the Medical Board. This shall be done within a period of 2 months from today. Since the respondents had taken close to 3 years for even conveying to the petitioner that such bills cannot be cleared without production of referral order from the Medical Board, the amount which is found payable to the petitioner shall be paid along with simple interest @ 10% per annum after completion of period of 3 months from the date of the submission of the bills till actual payment. 15. The petition is disposed of accordingly.