JUDGMENT : 1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union Of India & Anr., reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 has held that the Court is under an obligation to hear and decide the cases brought before it and it cannot shirk that obligation only because the lawyers have decided to abstain from the judicial work. 2. Dispensing justice is the fundamental raison d’etre of the judicial system. Timely delivery of justice is indispensable to retaining the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation system. Delay in getting rightful claim gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen constantly. Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to justice is regarded as a human right which is deeply rooted in the foundational concept of democracy and such a right is not only the creation of law but also a natural right. And the instant case is a glaring example where the petitioner, who is a Government employee took treatment of open heart surgery in a recognized hospital out of State in the year 1999 in emergent conditions to save his life but he was denied to get the amount of the medical bills expended in his treatment and he has failed to get reimbursement of these medical bills even after expiry of 24 years. 3. Looking to the short controversy involved in this case, this Court thought it proper to peruse the file and decide the matter on merits. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner (who expired during pendency of this writ petition) was posted as Police Inspector at Police Station Pratapgarh and he suffered heart attack on 07.06.1999, he was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where his heart rate was found as “EF 20%”. Since his treatment was not possible immediately at SMS Hospital, Jaipur he was taken to Delhi and looking to the serious condition of the petitioner, his open heart surgery was conducted in the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi on 19.08.1999 in which the petitioner expended a sum of Rs.2,72,965/-. After recovery, the petitioner applied on 06.10.1999 for reimbursement of medical bills before the respondent authorities amounting to Rs.2,72,965/-. After recovery, the petitioner applied on 06.10.1999 for reimbursement of medical bills before the respondent authorities amounting to Rs.2,72,965/-. The bills were returned on 14.03.2007 with an assertion that treatment was taken out of State without any recommendation made by the Medical Board of SMS Hospital Jaipur. As per the averments mentioned in the reply, the petitioner did not under went the medical treatment, as prescribed by the Rules. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Medical Attendance Rules, the medical expenses are reimbursable for treatment out of State only in the condition when the patient is referred by the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and a fixed amount is also determined for reimbursement of such medical expenses. Since the petitioner did not adhere to the prescribed procedure for getting the treatment out of State and therefore amount of Rs.2,72,965/- as medical expenses is not reimbursable. 5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 1996 (2) SCC 336 has held that under an emergent situation one cannot sit at home and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for getting the medical treatment at a particular hospital or wait for admission in some Government Medical Institute or seek reference by the Medical Board of authorized Hospital to get his treatment out of State. 6. It is well settled that the right of health is an integral to right to life. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh (Supra) has held in para 10 as under:- “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. 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? 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 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.” 7. Not only in 'Garuda Purana" right to life was also recognized in 'YAJUR VEDA'. First 'Mantra' of YAJUR VEDA reads as under : "Ishe tvoarjey twaa vaayavastha devo vah savitaa praarpayatu shreshthatamaaya karmana aapyaadwarmaghnyaa indraaya bhaagam prajaapatiranameevaa ayakshmaa maa vahstena eeshata maaghashanso dhruvaa asmin gopathau syaata bahveeryajamaanasya pashoon paahi." The mantra tells at the outset, about the various types of actions that man must undertake to bring happiness to the world. It says that the vital airs, the winds, the etherial elements (vaayavah) may be harnessed for food (ishe), the food which may give energy and vitality (oorjey). May the God Savitaa, the producer of precious gifts and the great inspirer of men and other beings, help the people to engage themselves in the best deeds (shreshthatamaaya karmana). The sense organs, and also all living beings (Aghnyaah) are fit to be protected and properly maintained, for, our own happiness depends upon them. We must keep ourselves free from the wasting disease (anameevah), we must save ourselves from the thieves (stenah) i.e., robbers and cheats, we must also keep ourselves away from the (aghashansah) people who directly or indirectly, actively or passively support the sinners and their sinful activities. The children, the servants as well as other dependents of a house-holder, also have to be protected against all sorts of dangers (Yajamaanasya pashoon paahi). The children, the servants as well as other dependents of a house-holder, also have to be protected against all sorts of dangers (Yajamaanasya pashoon paahi). This gives us a general idea about the contents of the Yajur Veda. The first and the foremost concern of the living beings is food. Animals eat food for their own survival. They are not concerned about the survival of others. But human beings cannot afford to neglect the survival of others. They must be always conscious about their environment. They must also take care of the ecological balance. These are necessary for their own survival and happiness. Men must also be able to produce food by harnessing the natural resources. They must take special care of their own health. Their happiness depends upon it. Men must also protect themselves from wasting disease. Or else their life may become miserable." 8. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and Ors., reported in (1997) 2 SCC 83 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Government has constitutional obligation to provide the health facilities. If the Government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a specialised approved hospital and on reference whereat the Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government Servant. 9. Similarly in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (UIO), reported in AIR 2018 SC 1975 (decided on 13.04.2018) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- "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. 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....." 10. This fact is not in dispute that Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi is a recognized hospital as per the Rules. Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is that as to whether a prior recommendation/reference from a Medical Board is essential, for an individual before he gets the treatment done in an approved hospital, by the State Government of Rajasthan. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the petitioner was admitted in the aforesaid hospital in emergent condition. Moreover, the law does not require that prior permission to be taken in such a situation where survival of the person is prime consideration. The petitioner was taken to hospital under emergent conditions hence prior sanction or approval was not required. 11. The controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest in this regard by this Court in the case of Hardev Ram Kaler (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2018 (2) RLW in para No. 4 to 7 which reads thus:- “4.The condition thus is that the reimbursement shall be only to the extent of the amount which is payable in any government hospital or government recognised hospital. Admittedly, as per notification dated 10.09.2010 Shalby Hospital, Ahmedabad is an approved hospital of the State of Rajasthan. Question is whether a prior recommendation/reference from a Medical Board is essential for an individual before he gets the treatment done in an approved hospital by the State Government of Rajasthan. 5. Admittedly, as per notification dated 10.09.2010 Shalby Hospital, Ahmedabad is an approved hospital of the State of Rajasthan. Question is whether a prior recommendation/reference from a Medical Board is essential for an individual before he gets the treatment done in an approved hospital by the State Government of Rajasthan. 5. In view of this Court such a condition imposed in the Medical Attendance Rules following of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors. (supra) is absolutely arbitrary and unjustified. Such a pre condition for treatment seeks to take away a right on an individual to lead independent, healthy life which is envisaged under Article 21 and Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 6. A citizen has an absolute right to get himself treated in the hospital where he feels, satisfied that he would be given best treatment and no official caveat can restrict such a right and if any such condition is imposed directing an individual to compulsorily get his treatment done from a particular hospital, it would amount to taking away his precious right to life and liberty and choose best treatment as per his and his near ones wishes for keeping his body healthy and fit and that of his dependents. This Court finds that even otherwise the condition does not have any nearer to the purpose sought to be achieved. It cannot be gainsaid to say that such condition can be misused in circumstances where a particular medical specialists who may be interested in conducting particular treatment may refuse reference to an individual for getting the same treated from other Doctor. Thus, such a condition in view of this Court is illegal and unjustified and can be ignored by a citizen who is or has been a government servant. 7. The purpose of Medical Attendance Rules is mainly with regard to reimbursement. As stated above, reimbursement would be in terms of the polices laid down by the government. Admittedly, as noted above for knee replacement Shalby Hospital has been duly recognised and therefore merely on account of non reference, the amount could not have been withheld.” 12. 7. The purpose of Medical Attendance Rules is mainly with regard to reimbursement. As stated above, reimbursement would be in terms of the polices laid down by the government. Admittedly, as noted above for knee replacement Shalby Hospital has been duly recognised and therefore merely on account of non reference, the amount could not have been withheld.” 12. In view of the law as stated above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the petitioner in his treatment in Escort Hospital in an emergent situation to the extent permissible for treatment at approved or recognized hospitals as per the rules/policy governing the same. The respondents are directed to make the payment to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. The necessary exercise shall be completed by the respondents department within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further ordered that in case the claim of the petitioner is not settled within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum. 13. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 14. Before parting with the judgment, it is painful to observe that the Officers of the State apply very casual and inhuman approach to deny the valid claim for medical reimbursement on technical reasons and forcing the government employee and the retired pensioner to approach this Court. This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. The concerned authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee (whether in service or retired) of his legitimate claim for reimbursement. The Rajasthan Government Health Scheme (RGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the State Government Employees so that they are not left without medical care in service and after retirement. 15. Day in and day out, this Court has witnessed that the concerned Official of the Government Department usually reject the bills of the medical reimbursement of the Government employees and refuse permission in a causal way by taking technical objections. These bills are kept pending for considerable long years and rejected after lapse of some years and force such aggrieved persons to knock the doors of this Court. 16. These bills are kept pending for considerable long years and rejected after lapse of some years and force such aggrieved persons to knock the doors of this Court. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court has taken care of such situation in the case of Shiv Kant Jha (Supra) and has directed the authorities of the Central Government to create a Secretary-Level-High Powered Committee in the Ministry concerned for quick disposal of such cases. Following directions have been issued in para 20 of this judgment of Shiv Kant Jha (Supra) which reads as under:- “Further, with regard to the slow and tardy pace of disposal of MRC by the CGHS in case of pensioner beneficiaries and the unnecessary harassment meted out to pensioners who are senior citizens, affecting them mentally, physically and financially, we are of the opinion that all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. We, hereby, direct the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 (one) Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 (seven) days. We further direct the concerned Ministry to take steps to form the Committee as expeditiously as possible. Further, the above exercise would be futile if the delay occasioned at the very initial stage, i.e., after submitting the relevant claim papers to the CMO-I/C, therefore, we are of the opinion that there shall be a time frame for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. In this view, we are of the opinion that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.” 17. Following the above judgment of Shiv Kant Jha (Supra) this Court direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to constitute a Secretary-Level-High Powered Committee in all the Departments of the State which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. Following the above judgment of Shiv Kant Jha (Supra) this Court direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to constitute a Secretary-Level-High Powered Committee in all the Departments of the State which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. This Court, hereby, direct the Secretary of all the Departments of the Government of Rajasthan to device a Committee for redressal of the grievance of the in-service employees and retired pensioners, consisting of Specialist in the field who shall ensure timely and hassle-free disposal of such claims within a period of two months. This Court further directs the Chief Secretary of the State and the Secretary of all the Departments to take steps to form such Committees as expeditiously as possible. 18. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary and Secretary Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan for necessary compliance. 19. List the matter before this Court on 04.07.2023 to see the steps taken by the State Authorities for compliance of the directions issued by this Court.