CP( XH 3HE H23H eOiJBT OP JUDleAltJEE AT BaasSUR (C.@.) WRII PETITION NQ.3>^°)2-Of 2003 BETWEBI Bwarllsa Erasad Choubey S/o late Sirl ialpdharl Choubey. aged about 50 years» occupation Govemment serviee* worklng as Assistapt teaeher'* Rrinary scfeool Badha Nagar»presently at Madhyefnxk Shal a Hanna» residant of vill age Badha Nagar. P.S. GHAtjSALI, lehgil Bal. Bistrlct Surguja (CG). .-•'l,.'*" ^^^ ^^y.^ ^^^ ^^ •/••" <^s^y _ ^!k',^~^"'' e State of cbhattisgaEh* Sisough ttoe Seeretary Bepartment of 'Crlbal itelfai®, Mantral ay» B»K. S. BU 3.1d tng* Raiimr (03). BET3TI®JER A N D <>• '^ ^<&/ y 2. 'ttie S-babe of eihhattlsgarh, . Itarougb ^he secretary Bepartment of Hedlth and Pamily asualng* B.K.S.Baildlng, Raipur (S8). 3. ahe Sollector, Sirguja, Bl.strict surguja (GS). ^ • ^ , ^ - 4. Sub Bivislonal ©fficea,?&ft-oject Aimtoistrator. Bakilcri-b Aadivasi Vikas B&risojna, Eal, Ranianujgaaj» Oistric't surgujg -(es). 5. Block sdacation Qffieer. Bscichandragar Oistrlct Surguja (e8). Bloclc Medical afficer. Brjinary Healiai eaitre RamanugJapg<Bistrict Surguja (@S). ^ EESPeBDBNTS WBIT EESITXQN W333EK ARISS&BS 226/227 Og''mE'eCMSTl'CBTIW 0F 3NBia 1. Particulars of Ihe Pe'kitioner : As stated in tfae caiase -title above . 2. 'ftir'blcalars of the BBSpondffits : As stated in fb®cause title sSoo-we. • . 02 . XI-HC-22 3(8<f«l 'g^tR^^I '^•SEfWCT, 'S^WS, RcilSj^ :^>^>.:: ,c"^ Wf- l^o • 3 ^-32/q3 *ii<wli a)*iiEb «*l; 200 of the Constitution of India, being AIUICXUTC P/'l, passcd by thc lAdTniTiistrator, Integrated Tribal D| which one iacrement out of two N |lieu of faauly plaiuung Laproscope' 2<i^%'F^nW ^( 8 2.1.2004 Shri Arua Shukla, Advocate f<] Shri Raabir Siugh, Govt. Adv^ Heard on admission. The petitioner has preferred t|us writ petition under Article 226/227 fegrieved by tfae order dated 30.1.2003 ^inount ahcadv disburscd to fhc! Irecovered in 18 instaUluents. The petitioner's case is that h| |ffife Sint. Pramila nevi gavc birth '(iltlte'sfl'j Wl^f ^ ^% ^R ?R ^? ^cN 3?Ft^?t •r thc pctitioncr. cate, fcr respondents No. l to 5. 3ub Divisional Officcr aad "rojcct svelopincnt Project, Rainaiiujganj by crenients granted to tfae petitioner io. Tubectoiny (L.T.T.) operation hawtng undergone by his wife Sint.. PraDai^a Devi, has been withdrawn and the pctitioncr has bccn dirccted to bc is working as Assistaiit 'l'eacher, his n tX>e second clnld in thc vcar 1981. |*hereafter his wife Sint. PramiSa De^i had undergone the Family Plaaning ppcration on 15.11.1986 at DhaTna^ii Camp oi^anizcd by thc icspondcnts ia(: efFect was issued by fhe respondent 'io. 2 and 6 and a certificate to thal No.6> which is Autiexure F/2. After ;he pctitioner jnoved for grant of t^ Eiaated two increments b'r fhe concd lundei^ouig the operation by his wite, |o iTicrp.mcTits and tlie pctitioner was [med aufhority ia view of the order dt. •tperation. However afiter the said 39.1.1979 issucd by thc Gcncral A^nainistration Dcpartmcnt ofthc State i^f Ivladliya Pradesh under the Gbver^inent Scheine for the fanuly plaiuung ..'l'.'r. operation the petitioner's wife T-7 F"~i: ,^ XI-HG-22 's'S? -4l<<i<')i<i ®fit<;f<is,Ri'lwy IIICTI ai'-net) "^I. 200 sn^i'w R-fi.'* al^SS Sft*fl<ft deUveicd one female child on ] 17.3.1988, ccrtificatcs to that cffcc] soiae coinplaint was inade agaias1| that eveu after faouly planiring delivered two children. A show cau^ the concemed authority. The peti| authority and inadc oral consideration fhe oral subinissionj the order Anuexure VJ I wfaich is I have heard leamed counsel Lcarued coiinsel for fhe schcinc thc pctitioncr^s wifc ha<^ certificate to that effeGt was issu^ Annexure Vf2 aad accordiugly the| to the petitioner. If t^hat. operatio^ delivered aaofher two children i.e. ycar 1988 thcn thc pctitioncr ij respondent/authorily ought not to tfae petitioner. On the otTier 1iand leamed purpose beluiid giantmg iacreinei; faauly planning schcinc is to contr^ of the scheme has been defeated i| has deUveied two chUdren even subibissions. petitioner issutd attetr *l<iii'i<fl'f ifWvS^ist& <Ritsi< '¥3lf^l*l iffl^f 5.5.1987 aud the second cluld on t arc ATITICXUTC F>/5 and P/6. Howcvcr, the petitioner to fhe respondent No.4 operation, the petitioner's wife has- e notice was issued to the petitioner by tioner appeared before tlie concemed But without takiag into i the concemed authority has passed aacl illegal. for the parties. subnutted fhat uiider the Govt. undcrgonc L.T.T. opcration aad a by the concemed doctor which is ofl dtie b^nefit oftwo increments was granted V. _ '"' ' •' . . . • • rtas.faited and tlic petitioncr's wrifc in fhe year 1987 and aaother in the i^ not rcsponsiblc for that aud thc have wifhdrawBi increiaent granted to Govt. ArlvocatR siihmitted that thc [ts to the Goyt. einployees under fhe |1 thc population growth aad fhc objcct i^i fhis inatter as the wife of petitioner grant of two iacreiaents thereforc the M-HC-22 '3^ ••'il<41<rt'i(, »nl<ri<»,R^'ll'yy affl^r ''WK *<iiCTr tnKicb "H^. 200 •sn^T^ir R-<t* 31§?f ?b*-ii<^ ^fitt sn^T ^^Fi^pr -wtia -3 ctit<lI<C1<<l^ 1-fT*l^ "^ ^¥t^^ iTiaNttgjl^r respondent/auftiority has rightly \<jithdrawii only one uicrenient but of two incrcincnts graiitcd to fhc pctitionc| The petitioner took the bene^t of two iucreiiients under order dated 29.1.1979 ofState of M.P. on the ^round fhat his wite had undei^one fhe L.T.T. operation for family plannin^ on 15.11.86 but aftjer fhat operation the petitioner's wife deUvered two jhildren one in the vear 1987 and ofher in thc vcar 1988. Thc oricr •4T<-1-/1O n29.1.1979 was issucd by thc uovenunent to encour^e the Go(rt. ciaployees for adoptiag the fanuly j)opulation growth. But the very object ^tood defeated by the conduct of fhe |af two uicreinents to the petitioner, his pctitioncr camc to know about fhc pjaiuung aieasures to coutrol the to control the population growfh petitioner because even aiter grant wifc dclivcrcd two cluldrcn. Evcn --iB^-^T- failure of L.T.T. operauon of his vai^ in the year 1987 as his wife delivered one child, he did not care and ha<|l n^t taicen necessary steps tbr tamily planning and fOTKllicted liimself in second child in the year 1988. Th^ iatroduction of fhc schcinc to gran1( further child is added to fh.e faujjily of Goncemed ciaployec aiid if on accouut of t^ure of ttie operati^ siicli a'way that his wifc (lelivcn:rl the Inam. and ultimate object behiad the two uicrcmcn.ts was to cnsurc that no m tfaat object is not achieved then pRtitioner riisetititled himsclffroni tfiat hRnefit as thc basis ofthc grant of iacreinent was to eiisuis that no chlild is added to the fairulv of concemed fhc pctitioncr's -"4ft- had undci^onc, cniploycc aad not only to scc tha( L.T.T. operation whefher fhe same ctrcuiustances petitioner disentltle4 himseif Iroui the benefit granted to is successful or not. Therefore ia the t<^Y •;[ t! i] l'i:;ii XI-HC-22 •svf •aiRRR, ^•rtlW<i, fitwwy sff^ "'ra^? *wt<rt41-1 t|fi4rif''t1S<^t <f"KSK % ~ilFdu~ 311^1 qil 1?;iR;3II§ft Wt! sfi^fTOisiT'Hita -^ him by defeating fhe very purpos^ of fhe order <a*d -A^\ fwvtr r r1 ,itcd 29.1. 1979 for coiltroUmg population grpwth. Thcrcforc, the facts iiapugned order withd-^wuig only one iacreineat out of two icreuients caoiiot be said to be ar^itraiy, irTational or iUegaL As such, I 3.0 imt find any tuerit iu fhis petiti^n the same is Uable to be dismissed and it is disiaissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo > Judge [^giSB^ ;f: I!