C.W.P. No. 11802 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11802 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 11.07.2011 Vishav Kumar ..........Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, SAS, Nagar, Mohali ..........Respondents and others BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing directions to respondents No.1 and 2 to grant family planning allowance equal to the amount of one increment in the revised pay scale under the Punjab Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 2009 as per letter dated 21.5.2010 with all consequential benefits arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per policy of the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for one increment granted to the persons who have undergone family planning operation as the petitioner was operated upon on 19.10.2010 and has made representation (Annexure P-4) to the respondent-authorities but no action has been taken so far. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Policy, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner C.W.P. No. 11802 of 2011 (2) would be satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents No.1 and 2 to decide his representation (Annexure P-4) in accordance with policy, which is annexed as Annexure P3 with the petition. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to look into the representation (Annexure P4) in accordance with Policy, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition and pass necessary order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled for the said relief, necessary relief be granted to him within a period of one month thereafter. The petitioner is also at liberty to again approach this Court in case any adverse order is passed. Disposed of accordingly. July 11, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE