Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1194 (MP)

Manula Dayre v. State of M. P.

2008-09-25

R.S.JHA

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard Shri S.K. Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28.6.2008 by which he has been denied two advance increments on account of having undergone a tubectomy operation. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the State Government issued a circular dated 29.1.1979 to the effect that all Government servants who voluntarily undergo a tubectomy operation after two children would be given two advance increments and those who undertake operation after three children would be given one advance increment. The circular also prescribes that this benefit would be made available to persons working under Semi-Government Institution as well as those who are working under any institution receiving grant from the State. The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Grade-III by order dated 29.7.1995, requested for grant of two advance increments on account of having undergone the aforesaid operation on 27.1.1991. The case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the policy of the State Government, however, on finding that the petitioner has undertaken the tubectomy operation prior to his appointment in Government service and at the time when she was working as a daily wage employee, the request of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 28.6.2008. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a daily wage employee when she undertook the tubectomy operation and, therefore, in view of the policy of the State Government dated 29.1.1979 the petitioner is entitled to two advance increments. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 6. From a perusal of the circular dated 29.1.1979 it is apparent that the benefit of two advance increments is available only to those persons who are in Government service. It is also apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid circular, which has been filed along with the petition as Annexure P-2, that paragraph 2 of the circular only makes it applicable to Semi-Government Institutions and those institutions which are receiving grant from the State Government and there is no mention in the circular to the effect that the aforesaid benefit would be available to daily wagers also. Apparently, the petitioner, at the time she undertook the tubectomy operation on 27.1.1991, was neither in Government service nor was she working in any Semi-Government Organisation or in any institution receiving grant from the State. That apart, being a daily wager at the relevant time, she was even otherwise not entitled to any increments, leave alone advance increments. 7. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.6.2008 rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of two advance increments which is in line with the circular of the State Government. 8. The petition filed by the petitioner being misconceived is accordingly dismissed.