IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 11651 of 2008 Decided on November 3, 2011. Dr. Anil Chauhan …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner is a pensioner of State of H.P., impleaded as respondent No. 1. He had been permitted, vide Annexure P-1, to undergo treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). He went to the AIIMS. He was found to be suffering from Bilateral Sensory Neural Deafness. There he was operated upon. Some hearing aid was also advised. Petitioner spent a sum of `4,79,256/- on treatment and purchase of hearing aid and submitted a request, alongwith all relevant papers, for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount of money, on 28.9.2002. Only a sum of `68,256/- has been reimbursed to him on account of Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - purchase of hearing aid. Rest of the claim has been rejected. Petitioner made various representations, but to no avail. He then filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in the year 2004. On abolition of the said Tribunal, matter has come to this Court and registered as the present writ petition. Petitioner seeks the relief of issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay the remaining amount of money, spent by him on his treatment, including expenses incurred on surgery undergone by him at AIIMS. 2. Plea, taken by the respondents, is that petitioner is entitled only to reimbursement of the cost of hearing aid and not the amount charged by AIIMS, for performing surgery. In support of this plea, they place reliance upon Government of India, M.H. OM No. S.14025/36/93-MS, dated 17.8.1999, noticed below Rule 8, at No. (10), of Swamy’s Compilation of Medical Attendance Rules, 1944. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. The aforesaid Government of India OM, dated 17.8.1999, pertains only to enhancement of ceiling for reimbursement of expenses, incurred on purchase/ replacement/ repair /adjustment of hearing aid, under the aforesaid Rules of 1944. The OM, nowhere, says that expenses incurred on surgery are not to be reimbursed. As a matter of fact, government servants/ pensioners are entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred on - 3 - treatment and the term ‘treatment’ as defined in Rule 2 (h) of the aforesaid Rules of 1944, includes surgical facilities available at the government hospitals, where government servant is treated. AIIMS is admittedly a government hospital. 5. In view of the above stated position, present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reimburse the expenses, incurred by the petitioner on his treatment, subject to upper limits, if any, prescribed under the Rules or the instructions, issued under the Rules, and to pay the said amount of money, together with interest @ 6%, from a date, two months after the submission of the bill, by 31.1.2012. November 3, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.