JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. At the outset, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the State, submits the affidavit-in-reply, the reply is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr.Vishrut Jani, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms.Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the State respondents.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP, waives service of Rule for the State respondents.

3.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.

4. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction directing the respondents to grant reimbursement of all the medical treatment bills of the petitioner as per ANNEXURE-B Collectively with interest @ 12% per annum.

[C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue direction directing the respondents to grant reimbursement of all the medical treatment bills of the petitioner as per ANNEXURE-B Collectively forthwith.”

5. The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher at a Primary Vinaykumar School, Surendranagar, since 11/02/1981 till her superannuation, i.e., 31/05/2018. The petitioner was detected with cancer in the year 2007 and she undergone treatment at CIMS Cancer Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad from 12/06/2018 to 15/03/2019. The petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.12,05,230/-. The petitioner, being a teacher serving in the said school which was a grant-in-aid school, submitted her Mediclaim with the respondent. The respondent, vide its communication dated 22/10/2020 read with 02/11/2020, rejected the Mediclaim of the petitioner only on the ground that she cannot be treated as an employee/pensioner of the State as per the Gujarat State Service (Medical Treatment) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2015”).

5.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of her Mediclaim, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

6. Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the issue germane to the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ushaben Dayashankar Shukla vs. State of Gujarat & others, dated 02/08/2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.17320 of 2021, which is confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its decision dated 12/07/2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.543 of 2023. It is submitted that the objections raised by the respondent while denying the benefit of reimbursement of her Mediclaim are not only erroneous but unsustainable in law.

6.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher in a grant-in-aid school, whereby she is required to be considered as an employee/pensioner of the respondent State, thereby she would be covered under the Rules, 2015.

7. Per contra, Ms. Vyas, learned AGP, would submit that as per the decision of the respondent, as the petitioner was serving in a grant-in-aid school, she is not eligible to get any medical reimbursement as per the Rules, 2015. It is submitted that as per Rule 1.2.2 of the Rules, 2015, it clearly enumerates that the said rules are applicable to those persons who are government employees. It is further submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 24/08/2015 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State, already clarified that only those employees who are government employees are eligible for the medical reimbursement.

8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents, it would emerge that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher in a government-aided school and came to be superannuated on