ORDER : Anand Pathak, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No.173/2020, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. As per office note, the appeal is barred by 156 days. 3. On due consideration, for the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, I.A. is allowed. 4. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. stands closed. 5. With consent, heard finally. 6. The instant Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is filed taking exception to the order dated 06/05/2019 passed in Writ Petition No.8689/2019 by the learned Writ Court whereby writ petition preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed and benefit sought therein was awarded to the respondent. 7. Respondent (petitioner therein) sought following relief in the writ petition:- "7.1 For a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the Respondents to provide Rs.2 Lakhs compensation to the Petitioner to compensate her for grave violation of her fundamental rights to life, health, dignity, and equality as well as suffering due to apathy of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 including trauma of being forced to deliver causing great mental, emotional and physical trauma to her. 7.2 That after the failure of the sterilization petitioner gave birth to a child and, petitioner has to bear the whole responsibility of her health, schooling, marriage, etc. after failure of the sterilization now it became the responsibility of the state to take care of the children." 8. In short grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that she underwent sterilization operation on 26/03/2016 and was assured about birth control however, despite undergoing such operation, she conceived and delivered a girl child on 21/07/2017. Because of failure of sterilization operation, she claimed compensation from the appellants/ department in the light of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 (6) SCC 1 , State of Punjab Vs. Shivram, 2005 (7) SCC 1 , Radha Ujjainkar Vs. State of M.P., 2008 MPHT (7) 45 and Ramakant Rai Vs. Union of India 2009 (16) SCC 567 , State of Punjab Vs. Shivram 2005 SCC (7) 1. 9. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 (6) SCC 1 , State of Punjab Vs. Shivram, 2005 (7) SCC 1 , Radha Ujjainkar Vs. State of M.P., 2008 MPHT (7) 45 and Ramakant Rai Vs. Union of India 2009 (16) SCC 567 , State of Punjab Vs. Shivram 2005 SCC (7) 1. 9. The learned Writ Court considered the fact situation and allowed the petition and in the wake of the Scheme called Manual for Family Planning Indemnity Scheme, 2013 published by the Ministry of India, Public and Health Welfare Department awarded Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner. 10. The State as appellants is before this Court in the writ appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellants/State that said Scheme although contemplates payment of Rs.30,000/- as compensation in case of failure of sterilization operation but it is with the caveat with regard to the limitation. He refers Clause 1.2 (8), which is salient feature of the scheme to submit that the claim shall be made by the respondent within 90 days from the occurrence of the event of death, failure/complication. Here, in the present case, birth was given on 21/07/2017 and claim was sought on 22/04/2019, therefore, it suffers from inordinate delay and latches therefore, claim of the respondent be rejected. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent refers the scope of scheme annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1, in which revised scheme is provided in the State Manual. The said revised scheme contemplates that failure of sterilization operation would fetch compensation of Rs.30,000/- and there is no clause regarding filing of application within stipulated time therefore, according to counsel for the respondent, she is entitled to get compensation in view of whole gamut of the scheme and its intent. Learned counsel supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 13. This is a case where respondent sought compensation before the writ Court because of failure of sterilization operation and she succeeded in Writ Court. From perusal of the scheme of 2013 attached with the reply as Annexure R/1, it appears that no limitation as such is prescribed in the said scheme. 13. This is a case where respondent sought compensation before the writ Court because of failure of sterilization operation and she succeeded in Writ Court. From perusal of the scheme of 2013 attached with the reply as Annexure R/1, it appears that no limitation as such is prescribed in the said scheme. However, learned counsel for the appellants/State was right when he refers the scheme in which question of limitation is discussed in clause 1.2 (8) of the Scheme. The said clause is reiterated for ready reference as under:- "Salient Features of the Scheme:- 1. The Family Planning Indemnity Scheme has all India coverage. 2. All persons undergoing/ undergone sterilization operation in public health facility or private/ NGO facilities accredited by SQAC/DQAC for sterilization services are covered under Section I-A, I-B, I-C and I-D of the scheme. 3. The Consent Form duly filled in by the beneficiary at the time of enrolling himself/ herself for sterilization operation duly countersigned at the medical facility shall be a proof of coverage under the scheme (Annexure 2). 4. The medical records and checklist for female/ male sterilization should also be duly filled in by the Doctors/ Health Facilities (Annexure 3). 5. All the doctors/ health facilities in public sector and private/ NGO facilities empanelled/ accredited with SQAC/ DQACs conducting such operations are covered under Section-II of the scheme. There is a stipulated criterion for empanelment of doctors/ accreditations of health facilities for sterilization which can be referred from "Standard and Quality Assurance in sterilization services, Nov 2014". 6. All claims arising under Section 1 and Section 11 shall be admissible from 1st April 2013, under the scheme. 7. Claims arising out of cases of sterilization operations which were detected and reported after 1st April 2013, will come under the purview of State Programme implementation plans (PIPs). Claims arising out of cases of sterilization operations detected and reported before 1st April, 2013, will not come under the purview of State Programme Implementation Plans (PIPs). Such claims would be covered and processed as per the respective guidelines of expired policies from 29th November 2005 to 31st March, 2013 and the convener of DISC (CMO or Equivalent) designated for this purpose at district level would be responsible for unpaid/ time barred claims above. No provision will be made for unpaid claims in the State PIPs 8. Such claims would be covered and processed as per the respective guidelines of expired policies from 29th November 2005 to 31st March, 2013 and the convener of DISC (CMO or Equivalent) designated for this purpose at district level would be responsible for unpaid/ time barred claims above. No provision will be made for unpaid claims in the State PIPs 8. The Claims will fall within the "Family Planning Indemnity Scheme" only if the beneficiary files the claim with the DISC within 90 days from the occurrence of the event of death/ failure/ complication." 14. From perusal of sub clause 8 of Clause 1.2, it appears that limitation of 90 days has been prescribed for filing the claim with the DISC (District Indemnity Sub Committee) to the person concerned, however, clause as attached indicates that delay in filing the claim can be condoned. It nowhere refers the consequence of filing any application for compensation with delay. Since it is a beneficial regulations/ guidelines meant to the welfare of those families who support the cause of birth control by undergoing sterilization operation, therefore, this is meant to address the predicament of those families, who suffer at the hands of State Machinery/Hospitals. 15. Perusal of the Policy further reveals that three contingencies namely Death, Failure and Complication (total three in number) are given and within 90 days from any of these contingencies, claim is required to be filed. Except death, other contingencies cannot be computed in exact manner because when operation would fail is un-ascertainable and when complication would ensue is also difficult to determine, therefore, loosely worded limitation period deserves to be construed in favour of the person for whom the benefit is launched. 16. One more aspect which also deserves consideration is the fact that if respondent/ claimant would have been in Government Service and already having two children and if conceive again because of failure of sterilization program then she might get reprimanded or removed from her service as per the policy of the State where service conditions can be compromised if employee is blessed with Third Child after cut off date. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Writ Court did not err in passing the impugned order on the basis of catena of decisions as discussed and referred above in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Writ Court did not err in passing the impugned order on the basis of catena of decisions as discussed and referred above in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Looking to the overall Intention and Objectives of the scheme and different pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court from time to time, it appears that benefit accrued to the respondent (petitioner in Writ Petition) may not be sacrificed at the altar of delay only. 18. The appeal bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.