The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a humane and flexible approach in applying the J&K Civil Services (Medical Attendance-cum-Allowance) Rules, 1990, especially in cases of emergent medical situations and genuine undue hardship.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the present petition was considered finally.

2. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the respondents vide communication dated 01.06.2015, seeking reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on the treatment of her husband, has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court through the medium of this writ petition for not only quashing of the communication dated 01.06.2015 (Supra), but also for directing the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses for an amount of Rs.14,99,511/- along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date, the bills were submitted by the petitioner with the respondents.

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that while the petitioner, who was a contractual employee with the respondent No. 1, was on a private visit to Nagpur along with her husband in the year 2009, her husband fell seriously ill and was admitted in Kalaptaru Hospital in Nagpur on 15.10.2009. The husband of the petitioner was operated and he was found to be suffering from 'Carcinoma Rectum'. The husband of the petitioner underwent emergent treatment i.e. chemotherapy as well as radiotherapy at Yashodha Cancer Hospital, Nagpur. Though the petitioner claims to have spent more than Rs. 25 Lakhs upon the treatment of her husband who expired on 08.09.2011, but the petitioner further claims to have retained the bills only for an amount of Rs.12,31,711/- regarding which she made a claim with her employer for reimbursement, but was paid an amount of Rs. 1.5 Lacs only in March, 2011. The petitioner after submitting the above mentioned bills submitted more bills for an amount of Rs.2,67,000/- as the treatment of her husband was continuing even after 2010. The verification regarding the nature of the treatment of the husband of the petitioner was sought by the respondents vide communication dated 21.08.2010 (Annexure H to the writ petition) from the Director, Health Services in terms of Rule 6(5) of J&K Civil Services (Medical Attendance-cum-Allowance) Rules, 1990. The Directorate of Health Services after examination of the claim of the petitioner found that the treatment received by the patient i.e. husband of the petitioner was genuine and intimated the same to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide its communication dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure J to the writ petition). The petitioner further claims to have approached the respondent No. 3 for according sanction to the release of her medical reimbursement claim and even submitted the representation on 20.03.2014 and the respondent No. 2 submitted the claim of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 vide its communication dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure L to the writ petition). The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide its communication dated 01.06.2015 which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.

4. The petitioner has assailed the communication dated 01.06.2015 issued by the respondent No.3 on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner had not deliberately gone outside the erstwhile State to get the treatment for her husband but while she was on a private visit to her parental house at Nagpur along with her husband, the husband of the petitioner suddenly fell seriously ill. Then and there only malignancy was deducted and the petitioner had no time to come to Jammu to seek proper sanction for the treatment and that the respondent No. 1 which is the Society, has extended the rules in to its employees and under Rule 8 of the Rules (supra), the power of relaxation is there, therefore, the society can relax any aspect of the rule in question so as to give effect to the spirit of the rules.

5. The Respondents have filed their response, wherein it has been stated that no permission was obtained by the petitioner to travel outside the State from her office and had left for Nagpur on her own. Four days leave fr