Order : 1. Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to reimburse his remaining medical bills amount pursuant to bills (Annex.2 and 3) along with interest as per applicable service Rules. 2. Relevant facts as pleaded in the case are that the petitioner retired from service while serving as a Senior Medical Officer on 31.07.2010. On 31.11.2015, the petitioner’s wife suffered from vertigo and severe headache and was taken for emergency surgery at Medipulse Hospital, Jodhpur. She underwent surgery on 01.12.2015 but could not fully recover and was discharged on 07.12.2015, with a recommendation for re-surgery. For this surgery, the petitioner incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 1,33,562/-. On 31.01.2016, the petitioner and his wife went to Mumbai, where she suddenly experienced the same condition and was admitted to a hospital in Mumbai as an emergency case. She was operated on 01.02.2016, and the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs. 2,69,013/- for the surgery. After recovery, she was discharged on 06.02.2016. 2.1. Upon their return, the petitioner submitted medical bills to the Treasury Officer, Rural Treasury, Jodhpur, for reimbursement under the Rules of 2013, along with the requisite documents. The respondents pointed out deficiencies in the bills through a communication dated 16.08.2016 and in view thereof, sanctioned only Rs.62,674/- in total, against the total amount of Rs.4,02,575/- incurred by the petitioner. On 17.01.2017, the petitioner submitted a representation, but to no avail. Hence the petitioner herein seeking the remaining amount of Rs.3,39,901/-. 3. In response to the writ petition inter alia following relevant stand has been taken in the reply:- “1. With due respect it is respectfully submitted that Petitioner's wife had undergone surgery outside the state in alleged emergent situation, while he went to Mumbai for tour and taken treatment in Bombay Hospital, Mumbai as well as in Medipulse Hospital Jodhpur. Petitioner filed medical bills of Rs. 4,02,575/- for reimbursement. As per Para 4 of scheme of Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 2014 (Here in after referred as 'Scheme of 2014') and as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Reimbursement) Rules 2013 (Here in after referred as 'Rules of 2013') as per appendix xiii and Rule 11 of Rules of 2013 Rs. 35313/ was reimbursed for treatment in Medipulse hospital, Jodhpur. 35313/ was reimbursed for treatment in Medipulse hospital, Jodhpur. Similarly according to Rule 10 (2) and 11 of The Rules of 2013 and appendix xiii, the 27361/- in total 62,674/- was paid to the petitioner and same was received by the petitioner without any objection. In this manner maximum permissible medical reimbursement is Rs. 62,674/- which has been paid to petitioner and petitioner has received this amount. Therefore, now no claim survives which is payable to the petitioner. Hence, there is no cause of action to maintain the present writ petition in accordance with Scheme of 2014, Rules of 2013 and in light of law affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2278/2011 (@ SLP) (C) No. 2888/2008 State of Rajasthan vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma (2011) 4 SCC 257 dated 02.03.2011, laid down in State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhya Bagga reported in (1998) 4 SCC 117 and State of Karnataka vs. R. Vivekanada Swami (2008) 5 SCC 328 in which it was held that the reimbursement is liable to be made up to the extent of provisions and further in light of decision of Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Anil Kumar Suroliya as well as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 858/2007 in Rajasthan State & Anr. vs. Mitthu Lal Gupta. The reimbursement to the claim of petitioner was made in accordance with aforementioned legal position. The Relevant Copy of Appendix-xiii is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure R/1. xxx xxx xxx” 4. It transpires that the respondents have already sanctioned an amount of Rs.62,674/-, however, the full reimbursement was not allowed on the ground that this is the only amount for which the petitioner is entitled under the applicable rules. 5. On a Court query, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the amount as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Reimbursement) Rules 2013. Therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner under Rules, ibid. 6. In this respect, reference may be had to a judgment rendered by me in a similar situation in the case of Kesra Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9571/2008, decided on 23.02.2024. For ready reference, relevant of the same being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow: “7. 6. In this respect, reference may be had to a judgment rendered by me in a similar situation in the case of Kesra Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9571/2008, decided on 23.02.2024. For ready reference, relevant of the same being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow: “7. Qua entitlement of reimbursement for treatment in emergency from a private hospital, learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of his arguments, relies on the various judgments viz. Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 336 ; Shobha Devi Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2022 SCC Online Raj 2868 ; Thomas T. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3749/2006 passed by this Court. 8. Adverting, now to the defense as pleaded in the reply filed with this court, it is evident that no explicit stand has been taken therein regarding the petitioner's not being entitled to reimbursement for treatment at a private hospital. However, the impugned note/order dated 19.02.2008 from the CMHO, which is inter alia under challenge herein, same expressly states the rejection of his claim is on account of private treatment. 9. XXXXXX 10. In the parting, I may hasten to add that reference in particular may be had to Supreme Court judgment rendered in Surjit Singh (supra), and as also rightly relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of right to self- preservation being a findamental right. Case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio enunciated therein. As held by Supreme Court, it is settled position in law that the right to health and self-preservation by medical treatment in an emergency is akin to the right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right is fundamental, sacred, precious, and inviolable. Employees of State have a right to take steps to preserve their own lives when faced with a life threat in an emergency. Accordingly, given the facts of the instant case, the petitioner herein had the right to take steps for his self- preservation, including seeking emergency medical treatment without having to wait for prior sanction and/or waiting for his turn in a government hospital or an authorised hospital instead of rushing to a private hosiptal i.e. Soni Hospital, Jaipur herein, in view of apparent threat to life at the relevant time. As an upshot, I see no reason, why the petitioner be not accorded the benefit of reimbursement of his medical bills.” 7. As an upshot, the instant writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on the rates prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Reimbursement) Rules , 2013, along with interest as per the rules, ibid. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.