Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner National Research Centre on Equines (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner Centre) has approached this Court through the present petition assailing the order dated June 1, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Respondent No. 2 Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, who is working as Senior Scientist with the petitioner Centre filed an original application before the Tribunal. He claimed that his wife Smt. Manju Gupta had been diagnosed to be suffering from blood cancer by the doctors at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and Christian Medical College Vellore. She was recommended a treatment of bone marrow transplantation. The aforesaid treatment was not available in India. Accordingly, the standing committee constituted under Rule 2(i) of Central Services (MA) Rules after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case recommended the wife of the aforesaid Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta for treatment at the Royal Marsden Hospital in UK. Necessary certificate in this regard was issued in the name of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 alongwith his ailing wife and donor of bone marrow, brother of his wife went to UK for treatment. They remained there for about 10 months. Bone-marrow was transplanted and the patient was discharged. She was advised to report for review check up after about 4-6 months. Respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner Centre and other authorities in this regard. Later on, required by the medical specialist in UK, the wife of respondent No. 2 was to be taken to UK for review check up and further treatment. Respondent No. 2 wrote large number of letters to the petitioner Centre seeking permission for proceeding to UK for treatment of his ailing wife. No communication was received by him from the petitioner centre. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 proceeded to UK alongwith his ailing wife. He remained there from June 23, 1992 till July 2, 1992. On return, necessary bills of expenses incurred were submitted for reimbursement. Still no reply was received by him. Condition of Dr. Guptas wife started deteriorating and on the advise of the doctors in UK and as a result of her check up at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, he alongwith his wife again was advised to report for further treatment in UK. Still no reply was received by him. Condition of Dr. Guptas wife started deteriorating and on the advise of the doctors in UK and as a result of her check up at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, he alongwith his wife again was advised to report for further treatment in UK. Respondent No. 2 again applied to the petitioner Centre permission and asked him for financial assistance. No reply was still received by him. In these circumstances, respondent No. 2 proceeded to UK for treatment of his wife. He returned back in September 1994. He submitted the requisite bills for reimbursement. A telegram was received from Indian Council of Agriculture Research demanding a fresh certificate of the standing committee for taking the follow up treatment. A reply of the aforesaid communication was sent. However, ICAR sent a letter to the petitioner Centre informing that Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta was not entitled to reimbursement of bills as on second and third spell, he had not taken prior approval of the standing committee. The bills submitted by him were returned with the objections. Accordingly, Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta filed the aforesaid original application before the learned Tribunal. The claim of the aforesaid original applicant was contested by the petitioner Centre and other authorities. It was maintained by them that since prior approval of the standing committee had not been taken by the original applicant, therefore, his claim could not be legally sustained. The learned Tribunal vide order dated June 1, 1998 has allowed the claim of the original applicant (respondent No. 2). Petitioner Centre and other authorities have been directed to reimburse the pending bills of the original applicant interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of submission of these bills till the payment. 2. The petitioner Centre has now approached this Court through the present petition impugning the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the parties. In this view of the matter, we have chosen to peruse the record of the case. We have also gone through the various grounds of attack taken by the petitioner Centre in the present petition while challenging the order of the Tribunal. 3. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the parties. In this view of the matter, we have chosen to peruse the record of the case. We have also gone through the various grounds of attack taken by the petitioner Centre in the present petition while challenging the order of the Tribunal. 3. Primarily the order of the learned Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner Centre on the ground that the prior approval of the standing committee had not been taken by the original applicant-respondent No. 2 while getting the treatment for his wife in second and third spell. On that basis, it has been maintained that an audit objection had been raised and, therefore, the claim of reimbursement made by the original applicant had been rejected. From the perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal, we find that reliance has been placed on a circular of Government of India dated August 31, 1997 (appended as Annexure A.35 to the original application). The relevant portion of the a foresaid circular has been extracted by the learned Tribunal in its order and it would be pertinent to reproduce the same at this stage as well: "It has been decided that in cases where a Government servant, or a member of his family, who has undergone treatment in a recognised hospital for cancer, if advised the Medical Superintendent of the hospital to continue certain treatment or check ups after his/her discharge from the hospital, he/she may be allowed to consult and receive medical treatment directly from a Govt. and/or a recognised cancer hospital without consulting the authorised medical attendant and obtaining prior approval of the State Administrative Medical Officer concerned." 4. The petitioner Centre has not disputed at all that on the first occasion respondent No. 2 had duly obtained the approval of the standing committee before getting treatment from the hospital in UK. A certificate in this regard had also been issued by the standing committee. However, even prior to proceeding for treatment on second and third spell, respondent No. 2 had repeatedly written to the authorities seeking the necessary approval. He did not receive any response. Thus, he was left with no alternative except to take his ailing wife to UK for treatment on the aforesaid two occasions. Of course, at that point of time the treatment of his ailing wife was the foremost consideration. He did not receive any response. Thus, he was left with no alternative except to take his ailing wife to UK for treatment on the aforesaid two occasions. Of course, at that point of time the treatment of his ailing wife was the foremost consideration. The language of the circular dated August 31, 1997 clearly shows that continuation of certain treatment or check up after the first treatment can be undertaken by an employee or a member of his family without the prior approval of the State Administrative Medical Officer. In this view of the matter since at the first instance, the necessary approval had been granted by the standing committee and on that approval respondent No. 2 had taken his wife to UK for treatment of blood cancer, then the subsequent treatment or follow up visits did not require any prior approval. 5. Thus, we find that the learned Tribunal has rightly interpreted the aforesaid instructions of the Government of India and has accepted the claim made by the original applicant-respondent No. 2. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.