Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                     1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                              ON THE 29th OF JUNE, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 14018 of 2022

         Between:-
         RAJESH KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI RAGHUVIR
         SINGH , AGED - 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
         SERVICE, R/O SIDDHARTH NAGAR GALI NO 1, A
         BLOCK 22- B THATIPUR, DISTRICT GWALIOR
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
         (SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA-COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER)

         AND

1.       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
         PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
         HOME, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

2.       DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
         HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.       SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DATIA, DISTRICT
         DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
         (SHRI G.K.AGRAWAL-COUNSEL FOR STATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                      ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

"i That the order dated 05-03-2022 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed.

ii That respondent may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of 2 two advance increment as a consequence of Vasectomy Operation along with all consequential benefit from the date of joining till the date of actual realization.

iii That cost of the litigation may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his wife had undergone a vasectomy operation on 07.02.2002 i.e. prior to his induction in Government job. However, it is submitted that he had already participated in recruitment process but clearly admitted that the appointment order was issued some time in March 2002 i.e. after the petitioner and his wife had undergone vasectomy operation. The petitioner has relied upon certain circulars which say that two advance increments shall be payable to the Government employees who undergo the vasectomy operation.

Per contra, the objection of counsel for the State is that the plain reading of the circular clearly indicates that on the date of undergoing the vasectomy operation, there should be an employer and employee relationship, and whereas the petitioner has undergone the operation much prior to his appointment as Government employee.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the basic purpose of the circular is to give incentive to those Government employees who have undergone vasectomy operation for the purposes of family planing. Merely because the petitioner had undergone the operation just before his inductment in the Government job, cannot dis-entitle him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The submission made by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the circular which is made applicable to the Government employees who undergo vasectomy operation.

At this stage, counsel for petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the validity of different circulars issued by the State Government in this regard thereby making it confined to the Government employees who have undergone vasectomy operation during their job.

With aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Aman AMAN TIWARI 2022.06.30 10:09:13 +05'30'