judgment It is not disputed that the State Government was of a view to popularize the family planning scheme of the stale had ordered grant of two advance increments to a Government servant having two living issues if he/she is operated for family planning under the scheme. This scheme came into force from 15-1-1979, and is admittedly applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner got himself operated under that scheme on 12-2-1979 and was given the benefit of two advance increments from that date 12-2-1979 he was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 1,000/- in the pay scales of Rs. 425-1050. This basic salary was raised to Rs. 1100 comprising of Rs. 1050 as basic pay and Rs. 50 as personal pay. It is not disputed that by an order dated 20-11-1979, the Government directed that the benefit of two advance increments would be available to a person drawing maximum salary in the pay scale, though as his personal pay. By a clarification, by an order dated 27-9-1979 (Annexure 'B') the Government had clarified that the benefit of two advance increments given under the scheme are in addition to normal benefits and do not have the effect of changing the normal date of increment. It is not disputed that the normal increment of the petitioner would have fallen due on 21-12-1979. If clarification contained in Annexure 'B' has to be applied to the petitioner's case, grant of two additional increments to him on 12-2-1979 would not effect his normal increment due on 21-12-1979. The respondents, however, did not apply the said circular to the petitioner and did not grant the normal increment to him from 21-12-1979. That is now be has been incurring a loss of Rs. 50 per month from 21-12-1979. It appears that the High Court bi its memo dated 13-3-1981 recommended grant of his normal increment from 21-12-197 but the respondents have done nothing in the matter. The High Court was apparently convinced about the correctness of the petitioner's claim. Since the respondent State Government has not denied the existence of clarification contained in Annexure 'B' there does not appear to be any justification whatsoever for not releasing the normal increment of the petitioner due on 21-12-1979. The denial of the benefit to the petitioner is per-se discriminatory. Under the circumstances, it must be held that he is entitled to his annual increment of Rs. The denial of the benefit to the petitioner is per-se discriminatory. Under the circumstances, it must be held that he is entitled to his annual increment of Rs. 50/- with effect from 21-12-1979. Petition allowed.