IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3053 of 2003 GANESH DUTT SINGH, son of late Sakaldeo Singh, resident of village Karamchak, P.O. Kharauna, P.S. Atari, District Gaya … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Gaya 3. The Additional Secretary Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director in Chief Health Services, Bihar, patna 5. The Director Department of Health Bihar, Patna 6. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna 7. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna 8. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gaya … Respondents ----------- 3. 4.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “Instant application is being filed for quashing the order dated 31.10.2002 of Dr. Manoranjan Chaturvedi the Chief Maleria Officer, Section 14, Health Department, Bihar, Patna contained in Annexure 8 whereby and whereunder the claim of petitioner for payment of expenses of Rs. 36,240/- incurred in course of traveling upto 22nd periodical routine checkup of his son at A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi has been rejected and for direction to the respondents for grant his permissible reimbursement expenses 2 incurred in course of traveling. With regard to the aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that not only the respondents having found the case of the son of the petitioner, a genuine one, as he was suffering from Cancer, had made payment of the expenditure on his treatment to the tune of Rs. 2,47,330/- but they had also reimbursed the journey bills of traveling of the son of the petitioner with an attendant and therefore, refusal of a sum of Rs. 36,240/- on the head of traveling expenses for the same treatment must be held to be wholly arbitrary. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, relying on the facts asserted in the counter affidavit would submit that whatever was admissible as per T.A.Rules and Medical Reimbursement Rules were made to the petitioner but then such journey for which there was no prior sanction of the competent authority or approval of the Medical Board could not have been treated to be payable as per Rules. This Court would find that there is a provision under Medical Reimbursement 3 Rules wherein the Government has been given power to make relaxation of any condition in exceptional cases. There cannot be a more glaring case than the present one where the son of the petitioner was suffering from Cancer and the Government in fact has also footed the bills regarding expenditure on his treatment and in fact also on his some of the traveling. In that view of the matter, this Court would feel that the respondents still owe a duty to re-examine the case of the petitioner in its true perspective and decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of Rs. 36,240/- spent on the journey of the son of the petitioner suffering from Cancer with an attendant. This writ application, accordingly, is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Health, to re-examine the case of the petitioner and take a decision as with regard to payment of journey bills of the son of the petitioner which have not yet been passed and paid on account of technical objection raised with regard to prior sanction of his journey. 4 Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled for any further some of the amount the same also must be paid to him within one month of the order of the Principal Secretary, Health. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/