JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“12(b) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent No. 2 herein and to further direct the respondents to reimburse the medical expenditure as prayed for by the petitioner in his original application along with interest.

Or in the alternative.

To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent no. 2 herein and to further direct the respondents to reimburse the medical expenditure as he is entitled to as per the government notification wherein the petitioner should be reimbursed his medical expenditure till the extent of fees as charged by normal empanelled hospitals.”

2. The petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Director General of Police in refusing to reimburse the medical expenditure of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has not undergone the treatment in the certified or empanelled hospital. Thus, it is the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner is not entitled for medical reimbursement since he has not taken or undergone treatment from the empanelled hospital.

3. The respondent authorities are not disputing that the petitioner has in fact undergone the medical treatment in two hospitals i.e. Sai Shraddha Hospital at Nadiad and the Zydus Hospital at Anand.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while attending the marriage function on 29.02.2016 at Taluka Memdavad, the petitioner suddenly suffered a severe cardiac attack and he was immediately rushed to the nearest hospital being Sai Shraddha Hospital at Nadiad and accordingly, he received primary treatment, however, looking to the deteriorating health and critical condition of the petitioner, doctor referred the petitioner to another hospital having requisite technology and expertise and hence, the petitioner was shifted to Zydus Hospital at Anand, which was the closest super specialty hospital from Nadiad. She has submitted that the petitioner was kept in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and thereafter, was discharged after taking the medical treatment.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has submitted that the petitioner applied for the reimbursement of medical expenditure incurred by him under the provisions of the Gujarat State Services Medical Treatment Rules, 2015 and submitted a detailed application with all hospital medical bills, reports and claimed reimbursement of Rs. 1,91,729/-. She has submitted that by the impugned order, the respondent authorities has refused to give the medical reimbursement only for the reason that the hospital, in which the treatment was taken by the petitioner, was not included or empanelled in the notification dated 24.08.2015. She has submitted that such action of the respondent is contrary to the proposition of law. Further, reliance is placed by her on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 187. Thus, she has submitted that the impugned communication may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to reimburse the medical expenditure.

6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Mr. Rohan Shah has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference since the petitioner admittedly did not take treatment in the empanelled hospitals, which are specified in the notification dated 24.08.2015. He has further submitted that there were also two hospitals like DZ Patel Cardiology Hospital at Nadiad and DDMM Heart Institute at Kheda, however, the petitioner did not undergo the treatment in the said empanelled hospitals and hence, the writ petition may not be entertained.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

8. The respondent a