ORDER : (Oral) (By Honble Mr. Jasbir S. Dhaliwal, JM) :- Applicant, Shri Hem Raj Nehrtu, has come to this Tribunal pleading that he was appointed as E.D.D.A. w.e.f. 20.3.1978. He under-went Sterilisation operation on 22-12-87 and promoted as Postman w.e.f. 16.9.1990. Claims that he approached the respondent authorities number of times for grant of special increment available on account of small family norms, but he was told that case for grant of increments to EDDA is under. active consideration and outcome of the same would be intimated to him. Claims that no decision was conveyed to him and special increment and arrears to other persons have already been paid in 1998. 2. Applicant made a representation dated 12.5.98 (A-2) which has been rejected by the respondents vide Annexure A-3, dt. 22.5.1998, on the . grounds that temporary employees are not entitled to special increments for under-going Sterilisation operation. Claims that the respondents have mis-read and mis-understood the provisions of the Government instructions. He has prayed for quashing the impugned order, Annexure A-2 and to declare that instructions dt. 15.3.95, are not applicable to EDD As, by correct interpretation and direct the respondents to pay special increment to the applicant w.e.f. 22-12-87 i.e. date of undergoing the sterilization operation and arrears thereof, with interest @ 18% p.a. 3. Respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant on the grounds that applicant was only an EDDA and has undergone the said operation before he was made regular. They claim that applicant was not a Government Servant at the time when he was operated upon and therefore, he is not entitled to special increment. Applicant does not wish to file any rejoinder. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record. 4. Respondents have placed on record copy of one, order dated 26-10-1998 which indicates that respondent department had given special increments as provided in the notification mentioned by the applicant, to one Shri Kali Das w.e.f. 5-8-89 after his services were regularised. It is not disputed that he had undergone operation before being regularised. Our attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for applicant to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Supdt. of Post Offices & others Vs. It is not disputed that he had undergone operation before being regularised. Our attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for applicant to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Supdt. of Post Offices & others Vs. P.K. Rajamma, 1977 SCC (L&S) 374, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that Extra Departmental Agents is not a casual worker but he holds a post under the administrative control of the state, though such a post may be outside regular service, there is no dispute that it is a post in the State. The tests of a civil post as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Assam Vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 4 (1967)1 SCR 679, are satisfied in the case of the extra-departmental agents. 5. Considering the facts of his case, we find that applicant was working as EDDA when his wife had undergone operation and under the ratio of the judgment in the case of Supdt. of Post Offices (Supra), he would; be covered under the notification as mentioned by the applicant for grant of special increment. The objection taken by the respondents has to be thus brushed aside. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of S. Ramachandran Vs. Chief General Manager, Telecom, Trivandrum and others, (1991)16 ATC, 641. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Courts mentioned above and in view of the fact that respondent Department has in similar case extended the benefit to their employees, as in the case of one Shri Kali Dass from the date of regularisation in the post of EDEPM, this O.A. is allowed with a direction to pay such increments to him w.e.f. date he was regularised under the respondent department. He will also be entitled to consequential benefits. We however, are not passing any order on the claim of the applicant for payment of interest thereon. No costs.