HARIDAS CHAUDHRY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order Annexure A-l, dated 9-6-2000, passed by the respondents directing to recovery of one increment granted to the petitioner for having undergone for family planning operation and to recover the proposed amount from the salary of the petitioner, this application has been filed in the year 2000 before the State Administrative Tribunal and after winding up of the tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court.

(2.) APPLICANT was holding the post of Asstt. Teacher and in the year 1989, it is stated that his wife had undergone the family planning operation and accordingly, a green card Annexure A-2 was issued to the petitioner recording the fact that after birth of second child, his wife has undergone the operation on 28th August, 1989. On the basis of aforesaid operation undertaken by the petitioner's wife and in view of the policy of the State Government as contained in Annexure A-3, two advance increments were granted to the petitioner. The petitioner continued to draw the aforesaid increments w. e. f. 1989 till date of the passing of the impugned order on 9-6-2000, i. e. , for 11 years continuously. The aforesaid benefit is withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner's wife has given birth to a daughter, a third child on 23-6-90. After operation, petitioner has not intimated the fact to the Department and has obtained the benefit of two increments illegally.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that after family planning operation had undergone on 28th August, 1989 because of mistake committed by the doctor in conducting the operation, petitioner's wife again conceived and became pregnant and when the fact was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner immediately vide Annexure A-6, dated 24-1-90 and annexure A-6/a, dated 28-6-90 brought this fact to the notice of Competent authority and also submitted a certificate Annexure A-7 issued by Block medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Satanwada, District Shivpuri certifying failure of family planning operation. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of intimation being given, the benefit is withdrawn retrospectively and action is being taken for recovery of the amount paid continuously for a period of 10 years.