( 1 ) PETITIONER retired as a Central Government officer and under the policy of the Government was entitled to reimbursement by the Government regarding his illness. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1996, the petitioner was referred by consultant in rml Hospital to the Escorts Heart Institute and Research centre for coronary ; angiography. "on 1. 10. 1996 the petitioner was accorded permission for heart surgery vide letter dated 1. 10. 1996. The total cost of surgery incurred by the petitioner was Rs. 2,08,270. 00. The respondents have reimbursed only Rs. 1,27,650. 00. The balance of the amount of Rs. 80,620. 00 has not been paid to the petitioner.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by non-reimbursement of the expenses cm 5317/99 incurred by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has raised all the amounts through loans from friends and relatives for his operation. At page 10 of the paper-book is the letter from Dr. Ram manohar Lohia Hospital with the recommendation that the petitioner was suffering from CAD with MI. He requires urgent Angiography CART/cabg. It was further recommended in the letter that necessary sanction be accorded by the cghs and he. should be referred to Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre which was approved by the CGHS for the said purpose. On 1. 10. 1996 the office of the Additional director, CGHS granted permission for taking treatment to the Escort Heart Institute with the direction that all | the bills will be paid directly to the Hospital by the department amounting to Rs. 13,800. 00 and Rs. 1,13,850. 00, i. e. Rs. 1,27,650. 00.

( 3 ) IT was contended by Ms. Janani, learned counsel i for the petitioner that when the actual expenditure was to the extent of Rs. 2,08,270. 00, the petitioner was entitled for the deficit amount of Rs. 80,620. 00. In support of her contention, she has cited Narendra Pal singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. 79 (1999) DLT 358 as well as State of Pun jab and Ors. . Vs Mohinder Singh chawla etc. JT 1997 (1) SC 416. It was observed by supreme Court in State of Punjab s case (supra) as under :-

"it is contended for the appellants-State that the Government have taken decision, as a policy in the resolution dated 25/01/1991 made in letter No. 7/7/85/5hbv/2498, that the reimbursement of expenses on account of diet, stay of attendant and stay of patient in hotel/hospital will not be allowed. Permission given was subject to the above resolution and, therefore, the high Court was not right in directing the government to bear the expenses for the stay in the hotel/hospital contrary to para (vii) of the Resolution of the government, we find no force, in the contention. It is an admitted position that when specialised treatment was not available in the Hospitals maintained by the State of Punjab. Permission and approval having been given by the Medical board to the respondent to have the treatment in the approved hospitals and having referred him to the AIIMS for specialised treatment where he was admitted, necessarily, the expenses incurred towards room rent for stay in the hospital as an inpatient are an integral part of the expenses incurred for the said treatment. Take, for instance, a case where an inpatient facility is not available in a specialised hospital and the patient has to stay in a hotel while undergoing the treatment, during the required period, as certified by the doctor, necessarily, the expenses incurred would be integral part of the expenditure incurred towards treatment, it is now settled law that right to health is an integral to right of life. 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 in