LALITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is appearing in person is a Class IV employee working in the Buxar Collectorate. According to him he had under gone vasectomy in the year 1972 -73 when he was below 40 years of age and on that ground he claims an additional annual increment as provided in the Bihar Government Employees (Special Provisions concerning Family Planning) Rules, 1977. Rule 2 of the Rules requires a government employee to make a declaration regarding the number of children within 15 days from the date on which the rules came into force or the date on which he joined service, whichever being later. Rule 3 of the Rules provides for encouragement for undergoing sterilization after two children and the provision contained therein is as follows : "Rules 3. Do Santano ke paschat Bandhyakaran ke liye protsahan '' Yadi koi sarkari sewak jishki aayu 40 warso se kam hai tatha do se adhik jewit santan na ho sawayam ya yathaishtithi aapni patni ya aapne pati ya aapni sabhi patniyo ka bandhyakaran karta hai to ushe aiyshe bandhyakaran ke pashchat ushki aagli daye vetan bndhi ke tithi se eak aagnm vetan bndhi di jayegi, paranto yah niyam kishi aaiyshe sarkari sewak par lagoo nahi hoga, jishke birudh koi anusashanik karyawahi ki gai ho ya aayshi karyawahiyo ki apekshanushar nilambit kiya gaya hai ya jishe betan bridhi rokne ko koi saja di gai ho."

(2.) IT is on the basis of the aforesaid rule that the petitioner claims an additional annual increment which has been denied to him by the authorities.

(3.) THE facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was engaged to work on daily wages admittedly on 24.6.1980 and he was regularised in service after about 17 years on 7.2.1997 and he had undergone the operation much prior to even his engagement on daily wages. But the question is whether a government employee can be denied the benefit of the rule simply on the ground that he had undergone sterilization before entering into the government service. There is no express bar in the rule itself, as quoted above, against its benefit being available to any one under going sterilization before entering into service. Hence, the benefit cannot be denied on the basis of the express language or the rule. Moreover, I find that the stand taken Maharani Fuels (P) Ltd. Versus State Of Bihar by the respondents is not in accordance with the object of the rule. The object of the rule is to encourage family planning after one has two children. Therefore, to me it appears that it would be putting undue restriction on the application of the rule and it would considerably frustrate its object if the rule in its application is confined only to those who underwent the surgery only after entering into government employment. In order to give full scope to the object of the rule there is no reason not to extend its application even to those employees who had undergone the surgery before entering into Government service. I am therefore of the considered view that the reason assigned by the authorities for denying the petitioner 'sclaim is unsustainable in law and warrants an interference by this Court.