1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5024/2005. : : Chagan Lal Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 25.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Pradeep Kalwania for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Gill, Addl.Advocate General for the State. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, who was serving the Government as Research Assistant (Business Education) in the year 1996, went to Chennai at his in-laws home. He was suddenly taken ill there and was immediately rushed to Apollo Hospital, Chennai in unconscious position. Immediately thereafter he was subjected to bye-pass surgery. He submitted the bills for reimbursement of payment of Rs.1,87,700/-. However, the respondents paid only a sum of Rs.46,243/-, out of the said amount in January, 1997 and thereafter did not make the remaining payment. The petitioner in the meantime retired from service in the year 1999, but he has been continuously representing the 2 respondents for reimbursement of the medical bills but nothing was not paid. Finally, the District Education Officer (Secondary First), Ajmer vide letter dated 12.6.2002 returned the bills of the petitioner with the remark that they cannot be reimbursed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that subsequently when the petitioner again made representation, the District Education Officer by his letter dated 31.8.2005 again required the petitioner to re-submit the bills. The petitioner submitted the bills in September, 2005. When nothing was done thereafter, he had to file this letter petition in November, 2005. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Kalra : DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1276/2006 and Anil Kumar Surolia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2005 (3) WLC (Raj.) 396 and argued that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two cases in similar circumstances directed the Government for reimbursing the bills of the treatment in private hospitals at least on rates admissible in AIIMS. Shri G.S.Gill, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the writ petition, but he could not dispute the applicability of the ratio of the aforesaid judgments to the facts of the present case. 3 The fact reveals that the petitioner had to be subjected to bye-pass in emergent situation, therefore, when if the petitioner was not paid at the rate of Apollo Hospital, Chennai, he should have been paid at least at the AIIMS rate prevalent in the year 1997. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner for the above treatment taken by him, minus the amount already paid, as per the rate prevalent in AIIMS with interest @ 6% per annum. The payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.5.