JUDGMENT : Atul Sreedharan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and Station Director, Radio Kashmir, Jammu. They are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2018, whereby, the medical reimbursement claim of the respondent herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The brief facts of the case will be summarized as follows: 2. The respondent-herein was serving as Programmer Executive in the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) and superannuated on 28.02.2011. The undisputed fact is that on 03.10.2006, he was on active duty and was recording an interview of one Prof. K.L Bhatia when he suffered a brain haemorrhage in the studio of Radio Kashmir, Jammu. He was immediately shifted to the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu and looking to his critical condition and lack of proper medical facilities to treat the patients of brain haemorrhage, the doctors in the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu referred the petitioner for specialised treatment in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh, where the petitioner remained under treatment from 04.10.2006 to 18.10.2006. Upon discharge he returned to Jammu but developed some post operational complications. The doctors at PGI, Chandigarh advised immediate surgery of the petitioner in Jammu through renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Haroon Salaria, and got himself admitted in a private Nursing Home (Langer Nursing Home) at Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, where he was operated for “shunt operation for post operational hydrocephalus”. After being cured, the petitioner lodged a reimbursement claim for medical expenses. As regards the expenses incurred by him at PGI Chandigarh to the extent of Rs.65,326/-, the same has been reimbursed, while his travel allowance claim of Rs.11,400/- which was claimed by the respondent in his medical claim was not sanctioned and was kept pending for approval of the competent authority. 3. The main issue relates to the expenses incurred by the petitioner-respondent herein on the private nursing home where he was already operated by Dr. Haroon Salaria, which were not reimbursed. The amount that was directed to be reimbursed by the learned Single Bench was Rs.46,945.32/- which was incurred by the respondent on account of surgery conducted at private nursing home (Langer Nursing Home). Haroon Salaria, which were not reimbursed. The amount that was directed to be reimbursed by the learned Single Bench was Rs.46,945.32/- which was incurred by the respondent on account of surgery conducted at private nursing home (Langer Nursing Home). The learned Single Bench also held that he was entitled to Rs.8790/- being the balance of the travelling allowance and that the same should have been paid within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of the order. It is the amount of Rs.46,945.32/- which is being challenged in this LPA. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order suffers from perversity as the standards/parameters applied by the learned Single Bench while allowing the petition filed by the respondent was incorrect. He has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Single Bench in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1975 whereby the similar case, where the patient had got himself treated at a Private Nursing Home and was denied the reimbursement, the Supreme Court held in Paragraph No. 13, which may be summarized as follows that where a government employee during his life time or after superannuation is entitled to certain medical facilities/benefits, no limits can be set on that right. 5. The Supreme Court also observed that it is acceptable to common sense that how a patient should be treated vests only with the doctor and that little scope is left with the patient or his relative to decide the manner in which the ailment should be treated. 6. It is necessary to mention here that in that case, the State was aggrieved by the fact that the treatment sought by the patient was in a hospital which was not enlisted with the CGHS. The Supreme Court negating the contention of the State posed a question to itself whether a treatment in a speciality hospital by itself would deprive the patient to claim reimbursement on the ground that the hospital was not included in the Government Order. The Supreme Court negating the contention of the State posed a question to itself whether a treatment in a speciality hospital by itself would deprive the patient to claim reimbursement on the ground that the hospital was not included in the Government Order. It went on to hold that such a right of the patient/government servant cannot be denied only on account of non-empanelment of the hospital and that the real test that must be applied is whether the factum of treatment was actually administered to the patient and whether the same is supported by the records duly certified by the doctors of the hospital where the surgery was carried out. In the present case before us, it is not disputed that the respondent underwent the surgery in a private hospital. The Supreme Court further held that once it is established that the patient/government servant has undergone treatment, reimbursement cannot be denied on technical grounds and doing so, the Supreme Court held, would be a very inhuman approach. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the law was wrongly applied before the Supreme Court, as it was the CGHS Rules which were under consideration whereas, in the present appeal, the respondent was governed by the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. The Learned Single Bench has also dealt with the same and has referred to the said Rule and has held that the said Rule is in two parts, with the first providing the government servant a free of charge treatment in a Government Hospital at or near the place where he falls ill provided in the opinion of the authorised medical attendant such government hospital has the necessary infrastructure to provide suitable treatment. Thereafter, the learned Single Bench also held that the second part of the Rule provides a situation where such government hospital is not available, the treatment can be had in such hospital other than the government hospital near the place where the employee falls ill, which in the opinion of the authorised medical attendant is equipped to provide necessary and suitable treatment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the government hospital at Jammu itself was well-equipped to administer treatment on the second occasion for post operational complications that was suffered by the respondent herein and there was no need for him to go to the nursing home. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the government hospital at Jammu itself was well-equipped to administer treatment on the second occasion for post operational complications that was suffered by the respondent herein and there was no need for him to go to the nursing home. He further submits that it was the same doctor (Dr. Haroon Salaria), who is an expert in neurosurgery and associated with the Government Hospital at Jammu, who performed the surgery in the private hospital, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that it is the undisputed case even of the appellant, that in the first instance when the brain haemorrhage was suffered, the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu did not have the expertise to treat the deceased and he was referred to Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh by the Government Hospital at Jammu itself. 10. He further submits that the post operational complications that had occurred was in relation to the primary cause which was the brain haemorrhage, and therefore, there was reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that he was suffering from a life threatening situation, and therefore, wanted to get treated in a hospital which had the best possible facilities which would inspire his confidence. 11. He further submits that there was an element of urgency because he was advised by the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh to get himself operated forthwith by Dr. Haroon Salaria. Under the circumstances, where the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu did not have the facility to treat the principal disease itself, the apprehension in the mind of the respondent whose life was in risk that they may not be able to handle the post operative complications arising from the brain haemorrhage effectively, is not unjustified. The same is reasonable as there is saying that it is only the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches. In this kind of a situation, it is only a patient whose life is at risk and whose anxiety is not measurable or quantifiable in financial terms, which is relevant as the Supreme Court has stated in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India (supra) that technical and petty considerations must not weigh with the State while deciding a claim for medical reimbursement. Learned counsel for the appellant has also voiced an apprehension that if this order was not set aside, every government servant would have the tendency/propensity to get himself treated for every disease directly in a private hospital and thereafter, claim a reimbursement. As far as that apprehension is concerned, we lay the same to rest. It is not in every case that government servant who without any reference from a government hospital gets treated in a private hospital can claim reimbursement. In this particular case, the facts govern the relief. As already said hereinabove, the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu did not have the expertise to treat the initial disease and therefore a complication that arose subsequently, from initial disease, if treated in a private hospital on the apprehension that the government hospital may not have the expertise to treat that subsequently, cannot be unjustified as already said hereinabove. Therefore, the facts of this particular case distinguish it from the general proposition/apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Under the circumstances, in view of what has been argued before and considered by this Court, the appeal stands dismissed. However, as an amount of Rs.46,945.32/- which was reimbursable to the respondent has been kept pending since the year 2018 and almost five years have passed since, the cost of Rs.60,000/- @ 10,000/- per year for the period this appeal was pending before this court, be paid in addition to the amount directed to be paid by the learned Single Bench. 15. The appeal stands disposed of.