BALIBHADER Vs. STATE OF H P AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved since recovery of benefits granted to him on account of sterilization operation conducted on his wife on 27.11.1993. There is no dispute that as on that date the petitioner was on ad-hoc service. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General submits that as per policy the said benefit would be granted only those who are in regular service. But as per the policy of the State itself, a person who continues in ad-hoc service for some time he is entitled for automatic regularization. According to the petitioner only on legitimate expectation sterilization operation was conducted even before waiting for the date of regularization. We find force in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The purpose of the scheme is to permit family planning among the employees in the State and in case employee who is on ad-hoc service has gone to sterilization operation even before the regularization of service that itself is possibility factor which the State should take not of.

(2.) As far as the second relief regarding the counting of ad-hoc service is concerned, it is now well settled law in view of decision dated 19.5.2009 of this Court in CWP (T) No. 7712/2008, titled Paras Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. which has been implemented. The same benefits have not been granted to the petitioner which were given to the petitioner in that case. The same benefits shall also be granted to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of production of the copy of judgment by the petitioner before the second respondent. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

(3.) Copy dasti.