Punjab-Haryana High Court
D.R. Arora vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 October, 2008
CWP No.947 of 1988 -1-
In the High Court of Punja and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Date of decision: 31.10.2008.
D.R. Arora ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents.
Present: Mr.Anupam Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Yatinder Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab, for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.
The short question involved is whether the petitioner was entitled to addition of Rs.200/- as the next increment without being absorbed in the future pay in the form of Personal Pay for undergoing Vasectomy operation under the State Government Scheme for the grant of incentive to the State Government employees for promotion of the small family norms. Under this scheme, an employee was entitled to special increment in the form of Personal Pay not to be absorbed in future increases in pay whether in the same post or on promotion to the higher posts. It is admitted position that the petitioner underwent vasectomy operation in accordance with the scheme. However, instead of grant of Rs.200/- as incentive/increment, he was granted only Rs.50/- monthly as personal pay for undergoing vasectomy operation with effect from 11.02.1985.
The facts pleaded in the writ petition are not in dispute. The only stand taken by the respondents is that after the stage of Rs.1400/-, the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of the scheme whereas after Rs.1200/- CWP No.947 of 1988 -2- he was entitled to benefit of the scheme. The petitioner has also crossed the efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.1200/-.
The issue in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court delivered in Regular First Appeal No.2763 of 1987 (The State of Punjab and another Vs. Davinder Kumar Monga), decided on 19.05.2004, wherein the following observations have been made:-
"Admittedly, the respondent has crossed the Efficiency Bar on 1.1.1986 at the stage of Rs.1200/- and after that his pay was raised to Rs.1400/-. Thus, there was increase of Rs.200/-
p.m. and respondent was entitled to Special increment of Rs.200/- as personal pay."
It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the aforesaid judgment applies to the facts of the present case.
In view of the above, this petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment referred to here-in-above. The petitioner is held entitled to the grant of same benefit as was given to the respondent in the appeal mentioned above. No costs.
31.10.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO