IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6099 of 2004 DR.AMBIKA PRASAD MANDAL, son of Late Yamuna Prasad Mandal, posted as a District Reproductive and Child health Officer, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health Education and Family Welfare, Patna. 2. The Director, Health Education and Family Welfare Department, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Education and Family Welfare Department, Patna. 4. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Ara District- Bhojpur. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum chief Medical Officer, Buxar District- Buxar. 6. The Additional Chief Medical, Buxar District Buxar. 7. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 8. The Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Buxar District Buxar. 9. The Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Sasaram District- Rohtas. ... Respondents. ----------- 3. 15.11.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief;- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of any appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions and in the nature of mandamus, commanding to the respondents and further direct to respondents to release the dues amount of Rs.10,000/- with cumulative interest and cost from doing the surgery of Family Planning under the National Scheme and fund in light of the Notification issued by the Commissioner cum Secretary, Health Education and Family Welfare Department, Patna vide Gyapank No. 188 dated 15.4.1996 contained as Annexure-1 to the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondents to dispose of the representations of petitioner pending before respondents, since last several years contained as Annexure-2 series to petitioner.” 2 this Court is of the considered opinion that the Competent Authority under whose control and jurisdiction the petitioner has claimed to have performed operations in family planning scheme, could have looked into the limited grievance of the petitioner for payment of incentive amount as per the government policy and decision dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure-1) if the same was specific and also supported by relevant documentary proof. The petitioner however himself does not seem to be sure about the actual amount to which he was entitled to for performing family planning operations inasmuch as his representation contained in Annexure 2 series to this writ application by themselves would go to show that only a vague claim, without the necessary documents and the details of even day wise or month wise of such family planning operations allegedly undertaken by the petitioner, was made by him. Such claim was wholly incapable of being allowed nor any effective order could have been passed on such vague representation of the petitioner. However, considering the fact that this writ application has remained pending from 17.5.2004 and that the respondents have also not filed any counter affidavit 3 till date, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a compact claim with documentary proof of such family planning operation performed by him in course of his posting in Family Planning Scheme in the District of Buxar and Rohtas. If the petitioner would file such a claim, the same will be duly verified by the concerned Civil Surgeon and if the Civil Surgeon would find that the petitioner had actually performed such operation, he will do the needful for making payment of amount as per the Government order dated 30.3.1996/15.4.1996 (Annexure- 1). Let it be however noted that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the claim of the petitioner to have performed more than 10,000/- family planning operations in absence of documentary proof and therefore such admissibility of payment of such amount would be decided strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)