ORDER : The present writ petition assails order dated 18.8.2016 allowing O.A. No.290/00271/15 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The Tribunal set aside the order dated 11.12.2014 and has directed grant of special increment to the Respondent on account of his wife having undergone sterilization operation and granted relief from the month of February, 1994 with 9% p.a. interest. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the wife of the Respondent underwent sterilization in 1994. He applied for grant of increments under the Scheme in 1997 which was granted in 1999. It was subsequently cancelled on 27.10.2006. The cancellation order was never challenged and attained finality. The Respondent represented six years later in 2012. The Tribunal despite noticing the delay on part of the Respondent including absence of any challenge to the order dated 27.10.2006 nonetheless has yet granted relief from 1994. 3. It was next submitted that in the service records the name of the wife of the Respondent was mentioned as Sonika Devi, while in the sterilization certificate her name is mentioned as Sohani Devi. Referring to Rule 54 (12)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 it was submitted that any change with regard to entries in service records was required to be intimated and correction made in the service book accordingly. The Petitioners therefore legitimately required the Respondent to apply for appropriate corrections in the service book so that his claim could be considered in accordance with law. Grant of any relief to the Respondent in the circumstances without corrections in the service book may invite audit objections. 4. Conversely Counsel for the Respondent submitted that he gave repeated representations and only on 7.9.2012 he was intimated the difference in names as justification for denial of increments. He informed that his wife was called Sohani Devi at home. The Tribunal in the circumstances rightly opined her name to be Sonika Devi @ Sohani Devi. He also got an affidavit published in the Rajasthan gazettee on 3.7.2014 to that effect. An affidavit duly attested by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur along with the gazettee publication was also submitted to the authorities. 5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 6. The Respondent who holds a Group-D post submitted a sterilization certificate issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur dated 3.10.1994 performed by one Dr.Manita Tyagi on his wife. 5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 6. The Respondent who holds a Group-D post submitted a sterilization certificate issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur dated 3.10.1994 performed by one Dr.Manita Tyagi on his wife. The Petitioners do not dispute the marital status of the Respondent. The sterilization certificate is also not questioned as forged fabricated or bogus document. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent's wife does not have any alias name. The affidavit submitted by the Respondent and the gazettee publication made in clarification are also not in dispute. The plea of an audit objection in the circumstances is indeed unfortunate and displays a rigid bureaucratic approach reflecting complete non-application of mind. If the Petitioners had any doubts in their mind with regard to the name of the Respondent's wife, nothing prevented them from sending an officer to the locality where the Respondent resided for clarification and submission of a report. Reliance on Rule 54(12)(b) is completely misconceived as it talks of change in size of the family. Had the Respondent not submitted an affidavit and the gazettee publication, matters may have been entirely different. To insist that he must make a formal application for corrections and that the copy of his affidavit and the gazettee publication could not be kept on record in the service book and he be asked to sign the same in confirmation, appears to be highly unreasonable. We have no hesitation in holding that the controversy has unnecessarily been generated and prolonged by the Petitioners with a pedantic approach rather than a practical attitude wasting the resources of the State in unnecessary litigation and the time of the Court. 7. But having said so, the question also arises that if the Respondent did not challenge the order dated 27.10.2006 and allowed it to attain finality and represented only six years later in August 2012 claiming that he became eligible to considered in the year 2010 only after he was regularized, what is the appropriate relief to be granted. The claim for increment does not affect any third party rights but is certainly a money claim for which the limitation would be three years as held in (1974) 1 SCC 338 (Sakal Deep Sahai Srivastava v. Union of India). The claim for increment does not affect any third party rights but is certainly a money claim for which the limitation would be three years as held in (1974) 1 SCC 338 (Sakal Deep Sahai Srivastava v. Union of India). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the grant of increment to him from 1994 with 9% p.a. interest is held to be unjustified. The relief is moulded for the preceding three years from the date of presentation of the Original Application with interest as granted. 8. The order to be complied with within the time period indicated by the Tribunal but to be calculated and reckoned from today. 9. The writ petition is allowed only to the extent indicated. Writ Petition allowed accordingly - Compliance ordered from date of judgement within time prescribed by tribunal.