Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner who superannuated as an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department, has approached this Court for a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, respondent no. 2 to sanction his medical bills as detailed in paragraph 8 of this writ petition which bills were submitted pursuant to the sanction order issued under Rule 26 of the Rules for grant of free medical assistance and supply of medicine to Government servants as contained in memo no. 2299(24)/Health dated 26.7.1995, contained in annexure A to the Counter affidavit. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of this application submitted that pursuant to the sanction order, annexure A to the counter affidavit, the bills submitted for indoor treatment at Bachcha Nursing Home, Mumbai, were sanctioned by the authorities but only the bills relating to the outdoor treatment as indicated in paragraph 8 of this writ application are not being sanctioned. He further contends that as the authorities were obliged to sanction the bills submitted pursuant to the indoor treatment they should also be directed to sanction the bills for outdoor treatment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, learned Government Pleader No. 6, with reference to the sanction order dated 26.7.1995, annexure A to the counter affidavit, has submitted that it appears that the bills for the outdoor treatment are not being sanctioned as the petitioner proceeded for such outdoor treatment without obtaining the permission of the authorities as was required under clause (7) of the sanction order and further it does not appear from the sanction order that the bills for outdoor treatment were also required to be reimbursed as was mandated in clause (2) of the sanction order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that as the State respondents pursuant to the aforesaid sanction order dated 26.7.1995 sanctioned and reimbursed the bills for indoor treatment, they should also sanction the bills for outdoor treatment as from perusal of the sanction order it does not appear that only bills submitted in regard to indoor treatment were required to be reimbursed. 6. 6. While sanctioning the bills, the authorities are, however, at liberty to verify the fact as to whether the petitioner before proceeding to Mumbai for outdoor treatment had taken permission of the authorities as was required under clause (7) of the sanction order. In the event, it is found that the petitioner proceeded for outdoor treatment to Mumbai after taking necessary permission as required under clause (7) of the sanction order, then it goes without saying that the respondents shall sanction the bills of the petitioner as indicated in paragraph 8 of the writ application and submitted for outdoor treatment at Bachcha Nursing Home, Mumbai. 7. This disposes of this writ application.