1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.10129 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.3.2011. ________________________________________________________________ Chander Mani .....Petitioner. Versus Government of Himachal Pradesh & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii) :- “(i) To direct the respondents to grant to the applicant the benefit of special increment(s) in the form of personal pay through out his service w.e.f; 1.9.1982 onwards for undergoing tubectomy operation by his wife Smt. Pushpa; (ii) to further issue directions to the respondents to pay to the applicant arrears of the special increment(s) from 1.9.1982 onwards with interest @ 12% per annum .” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 3 and 6(c) :- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “3. That in reply to this para, it is submitted that as per sterilization Certificate (Annexure PC), the spouse of the Applicant, Smt. Pushpa, underwent Tubectomy Operation on August 26, 1982; whereas as per record annexed by the Applicant with the OA, the case for granting Special Increment on account of the said operation was preferred by him in the year 1998 vide his letter dated May 25, 1998 (Annexure PD), i.e. after a gap of more than 15-years. The instructions issued by the Finance Department vide its letter No. Fin(C)A-8/88-IV, dated March 14, 2002 in pursuant to para-7 of the Office Memorandum No.Fin(C)A-8/88, dated December 8, 1981 were conclusive and it specifically provided and made it clear that in future all the cases where claims for incentive Increment are preferred at a belated stage i.e. after one or more than one year after the date of Family Planning Operation, claiming arrears from due date, the benefit of said increment would be allowed from the first of the month following the month in which claim has been preferred. The attested photocopy of the letter dated July 22, 2002 carrying instructions of the Finance Department dated March 14, 2002, is placed on record as Annexure R-2/1 to the reply for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Tribunal. This has the effect of meaning that no claim will be entertained and considered from a retrospective date i.e. from August 26, 1982 (Date of operation, Annexure- PC) and not from any future date subsequent to the date of his filing claim for the very first time in the year 1998 (Annexure-PD) and hence, the 3 same was/is not sanctioned under any Rules. Annexure-PA does not itself constitute upon the Applicant a legally enforceable right to receive any claim from a retrospective date. In view of above, the application filed is not maintainable. 6(c). That in reply to this sub-para, it is submitted that the instructions contained in Annexure-PB relate to the Year 1981 and the Applicant got his spouse operated for Sterilization Operation on August 26,1982 (Annexure-PC). The applicant did not ever prefer his claim in time for the years together as is evidence from mere perusal of his letter dated May 25, 1998 (Annexure-PD) and the claim, if any filed at belated stage, is sanctioned from future date only and not from any retrospective date, as per instructions contained in Office Memorandum dated March 14, 2002, Annexure R-2/1 to the reply above. ” 3. It is manifest from the record that respondent No.4 has failed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of sterilization increment despite direction to this effect issued to him by respondent No.3 vide letters dated 20th September, 2000, Annexure PE and 18th May, 2001,Annexure PA. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of sterilization increment and take a final decision in the matter within a month from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the 4 petitioner and pay to him the consequential benefits, if any, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, failing which higher interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st March, 2011. (jai)