Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwar Bhan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 November, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No. 13149 of 1994 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13149 of 1994 (O&M)
Decided on : 19-11-2012
Kanwar Bhan
....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The Court has perused the writ petition, the prayer made therein and the reply submitted to it.
The petitioner claims benefit of instructions (Annexure P-1 and P-1/A) which contemplate grant of increments in case a Government employee or his/her spouse undergoes sterlization operation as a measure of family planning programmes initiated by the Government.
Evidently the grant of increments is an incentive for a welfare policy. The wife of the petitioner underwent a sterlization operation on 8.7.1987 at Civil Hospital, Jind.
The aforesaid facts are not denied by the respondents but the benefit has been declined only on the ground that the petitioner has joined services of the State of Haryana on 16.12.1986 on ad hoc basis and his services were regularized w.e.f 1.1.1991 and therefore, on the date of sterlization operation he had not completed two years of service and consequently in view of the subsequent amendment to the notification CWP No. 13149 of 1994 (O&M) 2 Annexure P-1 i.e. Annexure P-1/A an employee on ad hoc basis with two years service or more was only entitled to such benefit.
I have considered the grievance of the petitioner and the reply submitted to the petition and I am of the considered opinion that the benefit for which the claim has been made by the petitioner cannot be denied to him. Such incentives are pursuant to persuasive methods intended to check the population explosion and therefore, Government should not create any artificial distinction which could dissuade the employees from adopting such methods, more particularly, in a country where majority of the people are not enlightened on this aspect. Concededly the petitioner has worked with the respondents since 1986 and his services stand regularized w.e.f. 1991. To deny him this benefit would amount to adopting a defeatest approach towards the welfare policy. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to the benefits of instructions (Annexure P-1/A).
November 19, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge