The duty of the state to bear the expenditure for specialized treatment and the entitlement of the petitioner to full reimbursement under the Central Services (Medical Attendant) Rules.

( 1 ). The petitioner is employed with Delhi high Court and is covered by the Central Government health Scheme known as CGHS. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents, namely, Union of India, through Secretary, ministry of Health and Family welfare, Nirman bhawan, New Delhi and the Registrar, Delhi High court, New Delhi, to reimburse the full amount paid to the Escorts Heart Institute and Research centre Ltd. (for short EHIRC), for the open heart surgery operation, undergone by him. Petitioner also prays for costs to be awarded.

( 2 ). Petitioner was suffering from cardiac disease, which was diagnosed as a case of residual vsd closure and was referred to EHIRC for treatment. The Registrar of Delhi High Court duly permitted the petitioner to undergo treatment and open heart surgery at EHIRC. A communication dated 24. 5. 2000, was addressed to the Medical Supdt. EHIRC, permitting the petitioner to have treatment at the Centre as per his entitlement and for admission to the private ward. The said communication was also endorsed to the Medical Officer incharge, CGHS Dispensary, with whom the petitioner is duly registered.

( 3 ). Petitioner was admitted to EHIRC on 6. 9. 2000, and was discharged on 28. 9. 2000 after a successful surgery. The total expenses incurred was Rs. 2,27,276. 35 (Rupees two lakhs twenty seven thousand two hundred seventy six and paise thirty five only) on treatment and paid to EHIRC. Petitioner had received an advance of Rs. 1,02,465. 00 and was also reimbursed a total sum of rs. 44,695. 50 thus leaving a balance of rs. 70,115. 85 as outstanding.

( 4 ). There is no controversy with regard to the amount incurred and spent by the petitioner. The only contention raised by the respondents is that the amount as per approved package rate has been reimbursed to the petitioner and nothing further is payable. The respondents claim that the petitioner is governed by the office memorandum dated 18. 9. 1996 and he has been paid as per the package rates approved.

( 5 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner mr. J. P. Sengh has relied on the Central Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, in particular Rules 3 (1) and 3 (2 ). Reliance is also placed on Rule 6 (1) in terms of which a Government servant is entitled to treatment free of charge at a Government hospital or at the place where he falls ill, as can in the opinion of the authorized medical attendant provide the necessary and suitable treatment. Rule 6 (1) (A) AND (B) AND 6 (2) are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :

"6 (1 )A Government servant shall be entitled, free of charge, to treatment- (a) in such government hospital at or near the place where he falls ill as can in the opinion of the authorized medical attendant provide the necessary and suitable treatment; or (b) if there is no such hospital as is referred to in sub-clause (a) in such hospital other than a government hospital at or near the place as can in the opinion of the authorized medical attendant, provide the necessary and suitable treatment. 6 (2) where a Government servant is entitled under sub-rule (1), free of charge, to treatment in hospital, any amount paid by him on account of such treatment shall, on production of a certificate in writing by the authorised medical attendant in this behalf, be reimbursed to him by the Central Govern- ment. . . . "

( 6 ). It is not in dispute that EHIRC is a recognised hospital for specialized treatment of cardiac disease and open heart surgery. In fact, it is one of the approved Hospitals as per the office memorandum dated 18. 9. 1996. Respondents claim that they have made the payment in terms of office memorandum No. S-11011/16/94-CGHS Desk- ii/cmo (D)/cghs P dated 18. 9. 1996, as per which the package rates given in Annexures I and II to the said memorandum are to be reimbursed. Petitioner has failed to produce Annexures I and II. However, the same need not detain us. The rates given in the said memorandum w