IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 12612 of 2008. Decided on: May 12, 2011. Dumnu Ram …Petitioner. Versus Secretary Education, H.P. & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Matter is covered by two judgments of this Court, one by Division Bench and the other by a Single Bench. A Division Bench of this Court, in CWP (T) No. 1874 of 2008, titled as Kali Dass versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 12.3.2010, made the following order in a case, facts of which and the relief claimed wherein, were similar to those of this case: “The petitioner has challenged the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner’s salary. While in adhoc service, the petitioner underwent the sterilization operation on 21.1.1983 and he was given benefit of increment when he joined the regular service on Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 25.3.1985. According to the respondent, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of sterilization operation, since at the relevant time, he was only on adhoc service. But, it is to be seen that the petitioner has since been regularized in service and whether in adhoc or regular service, fact remains that, probably on account of the incentive, the petitioner has undergone the sterilization operation. All that apart, it is seen that the incentive given in the year 1983, is sought to be recovered only after 25 years. We do not find any justification for such steps taken after a long delay of 25 years. To permit so would certainly be unjust and unreasonable. We do not hence find any justification in the impugned action, the same is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed, as above. The petition stands disposed of, as also the pending application(s), if any.” 3. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, a Single Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 19.7.2010, passed in CWP (T) 11187 of 2008, titled Kewal Krishan Sharma v. State of H.P. & others, observed and ordered as follows, vide para 6: “The respondents are also seeking to withdraw the benefit under the special increment family planning scheme already accorded to the petitioner. Regardless of the status of the employee the family planning programme is required to be implemented with vigour. All employees are to be entitled to the special increment family planning. Action of the - 3 - respondents in withdrawing the same is illegal and has to be struck down. Consequently, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of one special increment for family planning with effect from the due date.” 4. Consequently, present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, Annexure PA, ordering the recovery of payments made on account of increment by way of incentive for family planning operation, is quashed. May 12, 2011 (PC) ( Surjit Singh ), J.