IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13342 of 2003 PRAGWENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : Anirudh Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Md. Obaidullah, Adv. Asstt. Counsel to G.P. 6. ----------- 5/ 28/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is apparent from the government notification No.899 dated 32.3.1982 that the grant of one increment to persons above 50 years of age already having two children for a family planning operation was an independent benefit unconnected with the increments otherwise available to him under his service conditions. This Court has no doubt in its mind that the two increments cannot be mixed up. The former was an incentive or additional benefit given for a definite purpose unconnected with the discharge of his duties upon which may depend grant of increments under the service conditions. It appears that the District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah also sanctioned the same on 21.8.1995. The submission is that actual monetary benefit has not been given. 2 Learned counsel for the State from annexure-4 submits that it appears that one extra increment vide order No.18/95 has been granted on account of the said operation. However, even from the recitals at annexure- 4 it is not clear whether actual monetary benefit has been granted though it certainly reiterates his eligibility. If the monetary benefit of the one increment under the notification dated 23.3.1982 has not been granted till date, as alleged, let the same be done in accordance with law, within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the payment has already been made, the authority may pass a speaking order to that effect and communicate it to the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)