A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present writ-petition is filed by a Senior Citizen, claiming his medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,76,000/- who suffered from a heart-attack and had to undergo bypass surgery in an emergent situation.

2. The present petitioner underwent Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (C.A.B.G.) on 13-6-2011. The hospital in which he took the aforesaid treatment had issued medical bill of Rs. 1,76,000/-. The State Government only sanctioned an amount of Rs. 66,000/- against the package bill of Rs. 1,76,000/- incurred by the present petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, issued a notice to the respondent-authorities on 5-5-2012 to reimburse him an amount of Rs. 1,76,000/-, but no decision was taken on the aforesaid notice. Since, the respondent-authorities did not reimburse the outstanding amount, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court.

3. Mr. Gogia, learned Advocate for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the Resolution dated 9-9-2005. He has submitted that the present petitioner undertook the treatment at Sal Hospital which also figures in the list of approved hospitals in the aforesaid resolution. He has submitted that the petitioner underwent the treatment in the year 2011, whereas the respondent-authorities while placing reliance on the aforesaid Resolution dated 9-9-2005 has reimbursed the amount of Rs. 66,000/- as mentioned therein. He has submitted that the State Government is required to revise the policy as per prevalent charges of the hospital mentioned therein. He has submitted that it is not the case of the respondent-authorities that the petitioner has concocted the aforesaid medical bill of Rs. 1,76,000/-.

4. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed by learned Advocate Mr. Gogia upon the decisions of Apex Court in the case of K.P. Singh v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (10) SCC 167 and in the case of Shiv Kant Jha v. Union of India, reported in 2018 (3) SLR 328 (SC). He has submitted that as per the observations made by the Apex Court, the State Government is bound to revise the rates from time to time so that beneficiary receive the reimbursement as per the expenses incurred by the concerned employee. He has submitted that in the case of Shiv Kant Jha (supra) the Apex Court has directed the respondents to reimburse the amount, as claimed by the claimant, even though, treatment was taken by him from the hospital which was not approved by the State Government.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 26-3-2012, passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 624 of 2002 (J.V. Shah v. State of Gujarat) for claiming interest.

6. In response to the submissions advanced by Mr. Gogia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-authorities has submitted that as per the policy of the State Government promulgated vide Resolution dated 9-9-2005, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 66,000/- only. The attention of this Court is drawn to the Condition No. 1, envisaged in the aforesaid resolution which signifies that an employee/pensioner would be entitled to minimum rate, as prescribed in the common package or as per the rate prescribed in the appendix to the aforesaid resolution. He has stated that present petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs. 66,000/- towards reimbursement, as prescribed in the aforesaid appendix.

7. As regards the submissions advanced by Mr. Gogia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,76,000/- since he has not challenged the aforesaid Resolution dated 9-9-2005.

8. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner has undergone Bypass Surgery at the age of 74 years. The petitioner having fallen seriously ill, was advised to for immediate and urgent bypass surgery. The petitioner, under medi