The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of an additional government service increment. The petitioner, regularized in 1998, claimed entitlement under a 2002 circular for opting family planning in 1991 while on daily wages. The Court held the scheme applied only to regular servants while on service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2024:CGHC:28730
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2462 of 2015
Hari Prasad Gupta S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Gupta Aged About 52 Years Assistant Grade Iii, Forest Department, R/o Sevatatola Department, R/o Sevatatola Dongargao, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 . State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
2 . Secretary Forest Department Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Principal Chief Conservator Forest Aranya Bhawan Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Chief Conservator Forest Regional Circle Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondents/ : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G. A. State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
02/08/2024
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
10.1 That, impugned orders dated 10.03.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 denying benefit of one paying increment to the petitioner may kindly be set-aside public quashed.
10.2 That, the respondent authorities may be directed to grant one advance paying increments to the petitioner
2
from the date of regularization on the post of Assistant Grade-III along with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working as Daily Wager in the Forest Department since 1988 and his services were regularized in the year 1998. The petitioner got married in the year 1987 and later, opted for a family planning program. The petitioner’s wife underwent a tubectomy operation in the year 1991 while he was working on daily wages. In this regard, the petitioner moved a representation on 13.08.2012 before the Collector, Rajnandgaon for the grant of one additional increment pursuant to the policy of the State Government. The matter of the petitioner was referred to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur who vide order dated 21.03.2014 rejected the same on the ground that there is no provision to extend the benefit of one increment prior to coming into the government service. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 10.03.2014 and 21.03.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the circular issued by the State Government dated 18.09.2002, “ if either spouse opts for family planning after the birth of one child, government servant would be entitled to receive 2 additional increments; in case, after the birth of 2 children, government servant would be entitled to receive 1 additional increment” . He further submitted that since the petitioner’s family opted for family planning after the birth of 2 children in the year 1991, therefore, he was entitled to receive one additional increment as per the said policy.
3
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose. He submitted that the petitioner’s wife underwent tubectomy in the year 1991 when the petitioner was not under regular service of the department and there is no provision to extend the benefit of one additional increment to a person who was not in regular service while he/she opted for family planning. He further submitted that the petitioner entered into government service in the year 1988 and he moved the application in the year 2012 for the grant of one additional increment as per policy, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages in the year 1988 and he got married in the year 1987. After the birth of 2 children, he opted for family planning in the year 1991 and a green card was issued in his favour. According to conditions mentioned in the Green Card Policy of the State Government, “ if either spouse opts for family planning after the birth of one child, government servant would be entitled to receive 2 additional increments; after the birth of 2 children, government servant would be entitled to receive 1 additional increment.” In the entire scheme, it is nowhere stated that if a government servant subsequently enters into government service, even then he would be entitled to get the benefit of additional increments.
7. In the present case, the petitioner claimed his right to the grant of one additional increment for the first time in the year 2012 whereas, in the pleading, the petitioner stated that he was entitled to get one additional
4
increment in the year 1998 itself. It is also evident that the services of the petitioner got regularized in the year 1998 and he opted for family planning in the year 1991 when he was on daily wages; whereas according to the circular dated 18.02.2002, the scheme does not apply to daily wagers.
8. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No costs.
Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE
Ajinkya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an additional increment under the Government Family Planning Policy despite not being in regular service at the time of his wife undergoing tubectomy in 1991.
Whether the delay in claiming the benefit (first claim in 2012 for benefits effective from 1998) warrants dismissal of the petition.
Whether the High Court Court should interfere with the respondent authorities' orders denying the benefit of additional increments.
Hari Prasad Gupta
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
