IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14206 of 2008 Between: T.Sreedhar Reddy S/o.T.Changama Naidu The Chittoor District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd Puttur Branch Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND The Chittoor District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd Chittoor, Chittoor District Rep.by its General Manager .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the Family welfare incentive increments in terms of G.O Ms.No.521 dt.28-12-1995 and G.O.Ms.No.500 dt.11-12-1996 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently and direct the respondent Bank to extend the benefit of Family welfare incentive increments in terms of G.O.Ms.No.521 dt.28-12-1995 G.O.Ms No.500 dt.11-12-1996. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent : MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed in the respondent-Bank, as Messenger. He states that his wife has undergone family planning operation on 01.04.1998. The Bank adopted a scheme of providing incentive increment to the employees, in case they or their spouses undergo family planning operation. The petitioner claims to have made number of representations to extend the benefit of intensive increment, and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ever since 1998, the petitioner had made several representations and to none of them, the respondent has replied. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the scheme contemplates that the application for claiming the benefit must be made within three months from the date on which the operation was conducted and in the instant case, the petitioner did not make any representation within the stipulated time. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. There is serious dispute as to whether the petitioner made representation, at all, claiming the benefit, and if so, whether, within the stipulated time. This Court cannot embark on such disputed questions of fact. Be that as it may, the recent representation made by the petitioner, dated 10.05.2008, can be treated as a basis, for the respondent to react. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner, dated 10.05.2008, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.25.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ