CWP No.15186 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No.15186 of 2007 Date of decision : September 30, 2008 * * * * * Hukam Chand and others ............Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. N.S Khandola, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate for respondents no. 2 & 3. * * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? M.M KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing instructions dated 12.6.2001 (Annexure P-2) and the follow up action of reducing the personal pay of the petitioners. They CWP No.15186 of 2007 2 have also prayed for issuance of direction restraining the respondents from effecting recovery from the pay of the petitioners. The respondent-State of Punjab has issued policy instructions dated 19.7.1994 (Anneuxre P-1) granting incentive to those employees who opt for small family norm by undergoing tubectomy or vasectomy operation. According to the instructions, a special increment in the form of personal pay has been granted which is not to be absorbed in the future increments in pay either in the same post or on promotion to higher posts. The rate of personal pay would be equal to the amount of the next increment due at the time of grant of the concession and was to remain fixed during the entire service. In the case of persons drawing pay at the maximum, the rate of personal pay would be equal to the amount of the increment last drawn. The petitioners have adopted small family norm by undergoing tubectomy/vasectomy operation and were accordingly granted the benefit of one increment. Petitioner no.1 was given the personal pay benefit by giving one increment of Rs. 150/- w.e.f 1.4.1999, petitioner no.2, Rs.200/- w.e.f 24.11.1998 and petitioner no.3 Rs.200/- w.e.f 13.9.1997. The new Policy instructions were issued on 12.6.2001 clarifying that those Government employees who adopted the small family norms prior to 2.8.2000 would continue to draw the amount they were drawing in the shape of personal pay in the pre-revised scale. Since the petitioners have availed the benefit after the revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, they were affected by the policy instructions dated 12.6.2001 because they had undergone sterilization operations prior to 2.8.2000. CWP No.15186 of 2007 3 Accordingly, their pay was sought to be reduced by refixing the amount of increments. The respondent sought to make recovery from them and the action of effecting recovery as well as reducing the allowance has been challenged by the petitioners. In the written statement filed by respondents no. 2 & 3, the stand taken in para 7 is that during audit, objection was raised by the auditors to the grant of the increment in the revised scales which should have been allowed under the old scales as per policy instructions dated 19.7.1994 (Annexure P-1), although the revised scales were implemented w.e.f 1.1.1996. It was on the basis of the aforementioned objection and the clarificatory instructions issued on 12.6.2001 (Annexure P-2) that the rate of increment has been refixed. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, we find that once State Government formulate a policy for providing incentives to the employees which is laced with advancing the social purpose of adoption of family planning norms, the policy instructions cannot be interfered with. It is well settled that the policies of the State Government are not to be interfered with by the Courts especially when serious financial consequences flow from them. Therefore, we repel the arguments that the instructions dated 12.6.2001are unconstitutional or ultra vires. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. U.O.I (2002) 2 SCC 333 and Nair Service Society V. State of Kerala, (2007) 4 SCC 1. However, we are unable to find any justification for the CWP No.15186 of 2007 4 respondent to effect recovery with regard to the benefit already released to the petitioners because the petitioners have not made any misrepresentation. In that regard, we place reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCT 668. Accordingly, directions are issued to the respondents not to effect any recovery from the petitioners and if any recovery has already been made, the same shall be refunded to them within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the refixation of increment at a lessor rate shall remain intact prospectively. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned directions. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE September 30, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE