[2025:RJ-JP:46827] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7921/2010 Smt. Manju Devi W/o Shri Satyapal Khedar, Surya Nagar, Piprali Road, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Secretary, The State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner. 3. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Piprali, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akriti Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/11/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit and allow the writ petition and the order/letter dated 29.04.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to reimburse the medical bills of Rs.1,30,114/-. Any other relief(s) may also be granted which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government servant and posted as Teacher Grade-III at Government Upper Primary School, Bhairuji Stand, Panchayat Samiti Piprali, District Sikar. She further submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:46827] (2 of 4) [CW-7921/2010] petitioner’s son, namely, Vivek was suffering from Cerabral Palsy- Spastic Quadriplegia disease and the said disease is a neuromuscular disease therefore, the patient is not able to sit or walk. She further submits that she inquired for treatment of the disease at SMS Hospital, Jaipur but for the said disease the treatment is not available at SMS Hospital and by that time she came to know that best treatment of this disease is available at RECOUP Neuromusculaskeletal Rehabiliation Center, Banglore. She further submits that immediately they went to Banglore for treatment of his son-Vivek and was under treatment from 11.04.2009 to 28.08.2009 in which the petitioner has expended a sum of Rs.1,30,114/-. 3. Learned counsel further submits that after treatment the bills were presented for reimbursement but the respondent No.3 vide its letter/order No.911 dated 29.04.2010 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the reason that the treatment was taken without reference from the appropriate authority. She further submits that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to reimburse the amount of medical bills as per the rules. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the claim of the petitioner and submitted that the treatment is available at Government hospitals but the petitioner without seeking any reference from the Government hospitals has got treatment from the private hospital, therefore, reimbursement in such situation is not permissible. [2025:RJ-JP:46827] (3 of 4) [CW-7921/2010] 5. It is settled proposition of law that even if medical treatment is undertaken in a private or un-recognized hospital, department is under an obligation to reimburse the amount to the extent permissible under the rules governing the same. In the case of Rama Prasad Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7469/2016) decided on 21.01.2022, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held that it is a settled position of law that even in case where the treatment of an employee has been taken in a non-recognized hospital, the medical reimbursement has to be made at the rate that may be applicable for similar treatment in the recognized hospital. 6. In the light of judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma (supra), the respondent – Department is under an obligation to reimburse the amount to the petitioner for the treatment underwent by his son in a private or un-recognized hospital to the extent permissible under the rules / policy governing the same. 7. Present writ petition stands disposed of with the directions to the respondents to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the petitioner in the treatment of his son, to the extent permissible for treatment at a private or unrecognized hospital. 8. The necessary exercise shall be completed by the respondent-Department within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [2025:RJ-JP:46827] (4 of 4) [CW-7921/2010] 9. It is further made clear that in case, the claim of the petitioner is not settled within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum. 10. No orders as to cost. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /269