THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18153 of 2001 Dated:- 03rd December, 2010 Between:- The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chirala And another …Petitioners AND Sri S.Sambasiva Rao and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18153 of 2001 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award dated 19.09.2000 passed in I.D.No.117 of 1996 by the Labour Court, Guntur, whereby and whereunder, the award passed by the petitioners herein in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of Family Planning increment was set aside. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- S.Sambasiva Rao – the first respondent herein was appointed as driver in APSRTC on casual basis with effect from 06.01.1984. He applied for grant of Family Planning increment on 13.06.1989 basing on the certificate dated 20.12.1988 issued by a private Nursing Home, duly endorsed by the Medical Officer, Rural and Family Welfare Centre, Korisepadu, that his wife underwent family planning operation on 08.09.1984. The said application was rejected by the petitioners herein on the ground the first respondent is only a casual driver and that there was delay in applying for the same. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein made an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Ongole, seeking conciliation. The said Conciliation Officer submitted a report dated 21.09.1995 to the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh that there was no amicable settlement between both the parties. Finally, the matter was referred to the Court below under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court below, having considered the entire material on record and taking into consideration the fact that the services of the first respondent herein were regularized with effect 06.01.1984 by orders dated 06.03.1989, held that though there was some delay on the part of the first respondent herein in applying for the family planning increment, but since his services were regularized subsequently, the first respondent herein is entitled for the benefits from the date of operation of his wife but he is entitled for the monetary benefit from 29.09.1993 only. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners’ herein – APSRTC has filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. His main contention is that there was inordinate delay on the part of the first respondent herein in approaching the authorities for grant of family planning increment and that the first respondent herein was only a casual labour at the time of applying for the said increment. Admittedly, the services of the first respondent herein were regularized with effect from 06.01.1984, of course by orders dated 06.09.1989. Though there was some delay on the part of the first respondent herein in applying for grant of family planning increment, the said aspect has been taken into consideration by the Court below which passed award holding that the first respondent herein is entitled for the monetary benefit only from 29.09.1993 and which is clearly justified. In view of the above, I hold that the award passed by the Court below is just and reasonable and do not suffer from any infirmities so as to call interference of this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 03rd December, 2010 Bvv