HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6743 of 2010 Date : 25.03.2010 Between : B.Prakasham. …..Petitioner And The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mahaboobnagar Region & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6743 of 2010 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Driver working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, at its Depot in Nagarkurnool. Respondents have notified a Family Planning Incentive Increment, in cases, where the employee or the spouse undergoes family planning operation. In this case, the wife of the petitioner has underwent tubectomy operation on 26.06.2009. In that view of the matter, having obtained certificate from the hospital where his wife underwent operation, the petitioner has applied to extend the benefit of Family Planning Incentive Increment. 3. The request of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that as per the circular instructions, the application is to be filed within a period of ten days from the date of operation, and in the instant case, there was a delay of three days in submitting the application for grant of the incentive increment. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, explaining the reasons for delay, it is stated that as the petitioner’s wife underwent major surgery for delivery of the child, the petitioner could not submit the application within the prescribed period of ten days. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has submitted all the required certificates along with his application, the respondents should not have rejected his claim on the ground that there was a delay of three days in filing such application. Though there are circular instructions, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to consider whether there are any genuine reasons for not filing the application within ten days from the date of operation. When it is not in dispute that the spouse of the petitioner has undergone major surgery for delivery of child, the respondents should not have rejected the application of petitioner for grant of Family Planning Incentive Increment. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the office order, dated 22.07.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager in E2/289(1)/09-NGKL, is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of petitioner for grant of Family Planning Incentive Increment, without reference to the delay, as mentioned in the impugned order, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is also made clear that this order is passed having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and this cannot be taken to be a precedent for other cases. 6. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th March 2010 ajr