RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of directions to the Civil Surgeon, Ropar-respondent No. 2 and the Director, Health Services, Family Welfare, Punjab-respondent No. 3 for grant of benefit/incentive to the petitioner as per the provisions made by the State of Punjab-respondent No. 1 under the Scheme "Balri Rakshak Yojna" for the year 2004-05.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is an employee in private sector. He is married and has two minor daughters. The elder daughter was born on 5.9.1996 and the younger daughter was born on 21.3.2001. After the birth of younger daughter, the petitioner underwent N.S.V. operation on 10.9.2002 vide C.R. No. 503 at Employee State Insurance Hospital, Mohali. The certificate to that effect was issued on 13.2.2003 (P-1). The State of Punjab-respondent No. 1 had announced a policy on 24.3.2005 providing that the couples who had undergone sterilization operation after the birth of one girl or two girls were to be given incentive of Rs. 500/- in case of one, and Rs. 700/- in case of two daughters per month till the girl(s) attain the age of 18 years under the scheme titled as "Balri Rakshak Yojna" for the year 2004-05 (P-2). The petitioner applied on 22.11.2005 for the release of the benefits and attached all the documents like form in original, affidavits duly attested, birth certificates of the daughters, photostat copy of the pass-book issued by the Post Office with the Civil Surgeon-respondent No. 2 (P-3). On a complaint made to the Deputy Commissioner, Mohali, an enquiry was ordered and a report was to be submitted by the Civil Surgeon, Ropar-respondent No. 2 (P- 4). Despite issuance of reminders and personal visits of the petitioners to the office of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, no cognizance has been taken on his grievances, which resulted into issuance of a legal notice dated 25.10.2006 on them (P-5).

(3.) MR . H.S. Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the stand taken by the respondent-State in the written statement is not sustainable if under the heading eligibility conditions; general criteria is minutely examined. According to the learned counsel, the benefit of the scheme has been made available to the child/children of those couples who have adopted terminal method and the age of the youngest child is less than 5 years at the time of commencement of the scheme. He has maintained that at the commencement of the scheme on 3.3.2005, the younger daughter of the petitioner was less than five years of age and the petitioner has already adopted the terminal method of family planning. Learned counsel has further submitted that by the letter dated 2.2.2006 which has been produced with the affidavit of Civil Surgeon, Ropar-respondent No. 2, certain conditions have been imposed which include that the eligible couple should be registered in advance to avail the benefit of scheme that is to be given only to such eligible couple who were registered after implementation of the scheme and had also adopted permanent method of family planning.