Condl. (S) No. 19/2010. 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the review. 2. For the reasons detailed in the application, same is allowed and delay caused in filing the review is condoned. Condonation application is disposed of. SWP No. 1399/2010 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that his wife, namely, Vijay Raina was suffering from cancer of Gall Bladder, as such, was required to be treated out side the State and for seeking permission in this behalf, he applied for the same to the Government. Vide Order No. 249 of 2008 dated 18.8.2008, ex-post-facto sanctioned in relaxation of the rules, was accorded in his favour by the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Finance Department for treatment of his wife at Kidney Hospital and Life Lone Institute, Jallandhar. It is stated that after treatment, the petitioner submitted the bills seeking reimbursement of the amount spent by him on the treatment of his wife against which, an amount of Rs. 2,72,012/- is stated to have withdrawn by him for the said purpose. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that at that time petitioner was working as Accounts Officer, in Moving Cell, Fund Organization. Thereafter, he came to be transferred to the Indira Gandhi, Government Dental College, Jammu in October, 2008 and has superannuated from service on 31.07.2009. 6. It is contended that after his superannuation, petitioner was entitled to all the post retiral benefits for which, No Demand Certificate was required to be obtained from all the departments, where he had served. Vide communication dated 27.04.2010, No demand Certificate was issued in his favour by the Accounts Officer, Accounts and Treasures Finance Department. The respondents while sanctioning cash equivalent to the leave salary for 300 days in favour of the petitioner vide communication dated 26.02.2010 had made an endorsement that an amount of Rs. 272,012/- alongwith interest, out of the amount of Cash-in-lieu of leave salary be withheld till the case is finalized by the Administrative Department. It is this communication, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. 7. 272,012/- alongwith interest, out of the amount of Cash-in-lieu of leave salary be withheld till the case is finalized by the Administrative Department. It is this communication, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. 7. The contention of petitioner is that in terms of Rule 5 of SRO 203 issued vide Notification dated 14.6.1990 by the Finance Department, every Government servant is allowed for the reimbursement of the amount, if any, charged by the Hospital authorities, including cost of drugs purchased from the market during the period of hospitalization in Government Hospital within the State of the employee himself or any member of the his family, wholly dependent on him. While placing reliance on Rule 4 of said SRO, it is also contended that State Government servant and the members of his family to whom these rules apply be included as beneficiary. 8. The amount spent by the petitioner on the treatment of his wife after seeking sanction from the competent authority was required to be reimbursed to him. Any order seeking recovery of such amount from the petitioner would be in violation of rules. 9. Mr. Jamwal, learned counsel for the respondents states that petitioner was not entitled to this amount in view of the fact that his wife was not dependant on him, as she was also a Government servant. The petitioner can claim this amount, if his wife is totally dependant on him. He further states that amount has been drawn without verification of the bills. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. While scanning through the object of the policy, it reveals that it is intended to reimburse the expenditure incurred on the treatment of the Government official or member of his family, who is fully dependant on him. What it contemplates is that a Government servant or any member of his family who is dependant on him would be entitled for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred in the treatment. 12. Rule 4 contemplates that Government servant and the member of his family to whom these rules apply will herein after be called a beneficiary. Conjoint reading of both the provisions, clearly manifest that this benefit can be enjoyed by the Government servant or member of his family. Rule 5, however, excludes the member of the family, who is not dependant on the Government servant. 13. Conjoint reading of both the provisions, clearly manifest that this benefit can be enjoyed by the Government servant or member of his family. Rule 5, however, excludes the member of the family, who is not dependant on the Government servant. 13. There is no dispute that wife of the petitioner was a Government servant and was not dependant on him. It is also the fact that on account of her illness, she was independently entitled to the said amount in terms of rule 5. On verification, it has been found that she has not claimed the benefit under Rule 5 of the said SRO. It can be safely said that even though, this was mere irregularity, but there is sufficient compliance of Rules 4 & 5 of the said SRO also. I say so because both the petitioner and his wife were independently entitled for reimbursement of the amount under the said rules. Merely, because her husband had applied for reimbursement of the amount being a Government employee and his wife being beneficiary of the scheme, has not rendered any loss to the State as wife has not claimed any benefit on this being a Government servant. The respondents have fallen in error in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the reimbursement of the said amount. 14. Regarding the second contention that the bills have not been verified before the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner. After scanning through the various communications, it reveals that this stand is taken by the respondents for the first time before this court, which clearly states that it is afterthought. The respondents have constituted a committee to examine all such bills and no irregularity has been detected. There is no purpose and object of conducting enquiry against the petitioner on this count. The respondents have filed affidavit, wherein it is stated that prior approval of the competent authority has not been obtained by the petitioner for allowing him to get the treatment of his wife in a private hospital. It appears that respondents have over looked the communication dated 19.08.2008, whereby ex-post facto sanction in relaxation of rules has been accorded for treatment of the petitioner's wife. The respondents have filed false affidavit in this court. They are warned not to file such affidavit in future. 15. It appears that respondents have over looked the communication dated 19.08.2008, whereby ex-post facto sanction in relaxation of rules has been accorded for treatment of the petitioner's wife. The respondents have filed false affidavit in this court. They are warned not to file such affidavit in future. 15. In view of the above, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to release all the post retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner forthwith. Consequently, endorsement issued to the Accounts officer, Indira Gandhi Govt. Dental College Jammu vide communication dated 26.02.2010 is quashed. 16. In view of the order passed in the main petition, review petition shall also stand disposed of.