Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Dismissal of the writ petition, seeking medical reimbursement for cataract operation of his wife, has compelled the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) who was working as an Assistant Registrar with National Institute of Foundry & Forge Technology, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred to as NIIFT) to prefer the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner-in person referring to Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 submits that the rules do not require an employee to seek prior permission or sanction of the controlling authority before availing medical facility in any of the Central Government/State Government hospitals and the hospitals recognized by the State Government/CGHS. The only limitation prescribed under the rules is that reimbursement for medical expenditure would be at the rate fixed by the Government under CGHS Rules, Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 or actual expenditure incurred, which ever is less.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that his wife namely, Shanti Devi visited Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital, Ranchi on 13.06.2011 and the date for operation was fixed on 28.06.2011. His wife was admitted in the hospital on 27.06.2011 for operation. The petitioner submitted bill which was duly certified and countersigned, on 30.06.2011. Incidentally, the petitioner superannuated from the service on the same day. The Director, NIFFT, Ranchi vide letter dated 27.06.2012, referring to Rule 11 of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 declined reimbursement of medical bill on the ground that he had availed medical services from a private hospital for which permission from competent authority was essential under Rule 11 of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.

5. In the counter affidavit, the respondent-NIFFT has pleaded that under the provision of GI.MH O.M.F. NO. S/14025/7/2000-MS Dated 28th March, 2000 and F.No.S-14021/06/2005-MS dated 4th January, 2007 Central Government employees and their families may be permitted to avail the medical facility in any of the Central Government/State Government hospitals and the hospital recognized under the State Government/CGHS Rules/CS(MS)Rules 1944. It is further pleaded that in case of consultation with AMA (Authorized Medical Attendant) other than the appointed one, permission from the controlling authority is required, which the petitioner has not obtained. It is further pleaded that the petitioner submitted medical bill for reimbursement of Rs.21,000/- on 08.06.2012 whereas, cataract operation was performed on 27.06.2011 that is, after an inordinate delay.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent-NIFFT reiterating the stand taken before the Writ Court, submits that without taking prior permission of the competent authority, who could have applied his mind for judging the necessity of change of AMA, the petitioner got his wife treated at Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital, Ranchi, and therefore, he is not entitled for reimbursement of medical bill.

7. In the counter affidavit, the respondent-NIFFT has not denied that Kashyap Memorial Eye Hospital, Ranchi is CGHS empanelled hospital. It has also not been disputed that the said hospital falls under the category of AMA. Rule 2 (12) of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 permits an employee and his family members to avail medical facilities in any of the CGHS recognized hospitals. Though the main objection of the respondent is that the petitioner did not take permission of the competent authority, either before the Writ Court or before this Court, the respondent-NIFFT has failed to point out under which provision prior permission is required. Further, the respondent-NIFFT pleaded that the petitioner did not consult the authorized medical attendant however, again it has failed to disclose the name of the authorized medical attendant. In paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit, the respondent-NIFFT ha