Accordingly, the third respondent vide proceedings dated 25.9.2013, accorded sanction for payment of Rs.90,279/-. However, the second respondent rejected the same since the treatment undergone by the petitioner's daughter is not included in the earlier GO in G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 10.9.2007. In my considered opinion, though G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 10.9.2007 does not contain the exhaustive list of life saving treatment / surgeries, vide G.O.Ms.No.221 Finance Department dated 20.6.2012, the Government delegate powers to the authorities mentioned above for sanctioning reimbursement claims of the Government employees for the surgeries / treatment during the interim period between 11.6.2012 and 30.6.2012. Based on the said GO., viz., G.O.Ms.No.221 Finance Department dated 20.6.2012, the third respondent, after scrutinizing the medical records and bills / vouchers, has approved the said amount. Hence, absolutely, I do not find any infirmity in the sanction order made by the third respondent. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 20.2.2014 and the consequential proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 29.3.2014 and they are liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed.
