IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13496 of 2003 RAJ KUMAR BHARTI, son of Shri Sheo Balak Bharti, resident of village Jhanda Bharti Ke Mathia, P.O. Raniganj Bazar, District Ballia (U.P) at present posted as Assistant Teacher, Lalit Narayan Brahman High School, chapra Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. The Director (Secondary Education) Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran, Chapra. 4. The District Education Officer, Saran, Chapra. Respondents ----------- 7/- 14.12.2010 Petitioner is claiming that he should be granted an increment according to the 1977 Rules, contained in Annexure No.3 of the writ application which entitles the employee to receive an increment after he or his wife get operated under the Family Planning Scheme. The case of the petitioner is that his wife, Nirmala Bharti get operated on 09.01.1994. The petitioner made an application before the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Bihar, Patna which has been counter signed by the Headmaster on 11.03.1994. The original copy of the said application has been produced before this Court, photocopy of which can be kept on record. The petitioner claims that vide annexure no.4A that he filed his application by filing the pro forma prescribed for this purpose. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide annexure no.4A he has filed the application for grant of increment under the Family Planning Scheme which was forwarded by the 2 Headmaster, in June 1994. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has filed the application within three months of the Family Planning operation on 11.03.1994, and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefit of the increment of pay scale. It is further submitted that having filed the application on 09.01.1994, it is not his fault that there was a delay by the authorities in forwarding his application. Annexure 5 would reveal that the application was received by the authorities. The reason for rejecting the application is that in fact, the authorities did not find that there was any proforma filed by the petitioner within the time limit. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that by the amendment of the 1977 Rules there is no time limit for those persons who have filed the Family Planning application before the year 1990. On interpretation of the amended Rules, it is clear that benefit has been given to those persons who were not able to file the application between the years 1977-1990. It is obvious that this benefit has not been extended for those employees who filed their application beyond the period of 1990. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, there appears to be some discrepancies to the factual aspect, the petitioner claiming vide annexsure-5 that the application was filed within time and the State claiming otherwise. In the circumstances, the State authorities will examine whether the proforma, annexure 5, as any other application has been filed in the office of the Education authority through the 3 Head master. The enquiry may be conducted by the Director, Secondary Education within a period of six months. Petitioner is entitled to file representation within eight weeks of receipt of the order. Annexure-7 is quashed. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Ashwini/- (Sheema Ali khan, J.)