Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6389 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28586 of 2011)

The Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy & Others.      …APPELLANTS.

        VERSUS

M.K. Bawane               ...RESPONDENT.

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2 Leave granted.

3. Though served and sufficient opportunities granted, none has appeared  

for the respondent-employee and therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

4.  The facts giving rise to the appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

The  respondent-employee  was  re-employed  as  a  Male  Nurse  at  

Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad.  According to the case of the respondent-

employee,  prior  to  his  re-employment,  a  sterilization  operation  was  

1

Page 2

undertaken by his wife and therefore,  as  per  the policy of the appellant-

organization, he was entitled to one incentive increment for promoting small  

family norms.   In  spite  of  his  repeated  requests  he  was  not  given  the  

increment  and  therefore,  he  had  approached  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal, Hyderabad by filing O.A.No.254 of 2009. The Tribunal rejected his  

application relying upon the policy of the Government to the effect that a re-

employed person, if he or his spouse had undergone sterilization operation  

prior  to  his  re-employment,  was  not  entitled  to  an  increment  by  way  of  

incentive.  

5. The  Tribunal  did  not  grant  the  application  in  view  of  the  policy  

decision of the Government to the effect that the special incentive increment  

was  not  to  be  given to  a  person  who/whose  spouse  had  undergone  the  

sterilization operation before his re-employment.  The appellant-organization  

had recorded the reason and conveyed the same to the respondent-employee  

under  letter  dated  20.1.2007  for  which the  respondent-employee  was  not  

given the  incentive.   The  said  reason,  as  recorded  by  the  Tribunal,   is  

reproduced hereinbelow:

“Incentive  increment  is  not  admissible  to  re-employed  pensioners  who or  whose  spouse  had  undergone sterilization  operation before the date of re-employment.  Re-employment is  a  fresh  employment  wherein  incentive  increment  for  earlier  employment cannot be continued.”

2

Page 3

6.   Not  being  satisfied  with  the  rejection  of  the  application,  the  

respondent-employee had filed Writ Petition No.24132 of 2009 in the High  

Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal.  

The petition was allowed and the High Court has directed the appellants to  

give special incentive increment to the respondent-employee.  

7. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment delivered by the High  

Court, this appeal has been filed.

8. Before dealing with the facts of the case, let us see the circumstances  

in which the Government had framed a policy with regard to giving special  

incentive increment to its employees for undergoing sterilization operation.

9. It is a known fact that our country is having a severe problem with  

regard  to  explosion of  population  and  so  as  to  curb  the  population,  the  

Government had framed certain policies.   The Government had made an  

effort to give incentive to those who had tried to control the size of their  

families and as  per  one of the policies,  with which we are  concerned at  

present,  an employee or  his/her  spouse  undergoing sterilization operation,  

was to be given one incentive increment.  It was, however, clarified under  

policy dated  18.9.2002 that  the re-employed persons were  not  entitled to  

3

Page 4

incentive,  if  the  sterilization  operation  was  undergone  prior  to  the  re-

employment.   

10. Assailing  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court,  the  learned  

Additional Solicitor General had submitted that the High Court committed a  

mistake  by  giving  a  direction  to  the  appellant-organization  for  giving  

incentive increment to the respondent-employee in spite of the fact that the  

aforestated policy had been duly considered by the Tribunal while rejecting  

the application of the respondent-employee.  

11. The  High  Court,  while  allowing  the  petition  has  observed  in  its  

judgment that in some other cases benefit of incentive increment was given  

even after re-employment and therefore, the case of the respondent-employee  

ought to have been considered favorably by the employer.  It appears that for  

some special reason in an order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.142 of  

2004,  in  the  case  of  Sri  Vijay  Kumar,  though  re-employed,  incentive  

increment was  granted and therefore,  the High Court directed to  give the  

same benefit to the respondent-employee in terms of parity.

4

Page 5

12. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that there  

was some special reason for which the above named Sri Vijay Kumar was  

granted  the  benefit  under  Order  dated  20th December,  2004,  though the  

Tribunal has not given the special reason for which that benefit was given to  

the said retired employee.  We do not know whether in the said case, which  

was  decided on 20.12.2004,  Sri Vijay Kumar had undergone sterilization  

before or after 18.9.2002, the date on which the policy decision was taken.  

Be that as it may, a mistake, if committed in one case cannot be treated as a  

precedent.

13. The  Tribunal  while  rejecting  the  application  of  the  respondent-

employee had clearly referred to the policy decision taken on 18.9.2002.  The  

said  decision  contained  in  G.I.,  Department  of  Posts  letter  No.6-2/1999  

(Mis.)-PAP,  dated  18.9.2002  as  recorded  by  the  Tribunal  is  reproduced  

below:

“incentive not admissible to the re-employed person who had  sterilization operation prior to re-employment.

1. This is regarding grant of special increment for promoting  small  family  norms  to  ex-servicemen  who  are  re- employed in Government.

5

Page 6

2. The  matter  was  taken  up  with  Nodal  Ministry,  i.e.,  Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, based on  a reference received from Karnataka Postal Circle.

3. It  has  been  clarified  by  Ministry  of  Finance  vide  I.P.  No.587/E-III (A)/2002, dated 2.9.2002 that incentive for  adopting small family norms is admissible during service  life of eligible Government servants.  Once an employee  demits office/retire from/ceases to be in the Government  service on whatsoever consideration, his/her service life  ends, and the incentive for adoption of small family norms  also  comes  to  an  end.   In  the  case  of  re-employment  which is in the nature of fresh employment/appointment,  the  incentive  admissible  in  the  past  service  before  re- employment  cannot  automatically  be  continued.  Consequently,  re-employed  persons  are  not  entitled  to  incentive, if the sterilization operation on this account was  undergone prior to re-employment.

4. Any such cases pending in your circle may be disposed of  based on this clarification given by Ministry of Finance.”

14. In our opinion, the Tribunal was absolutely justified in rejecting the  

application of the respondent-employee in view of the aforestated policy of  

the Government.

15. No harsh steps are taken by the Government to control the population  

which  is  increasing  by  leaps  and  bound.  A  small  effort  made  by  the  

Government to control the size of the family members of its employees would  

6

Page 7

also go in vain if courts would take such lenient approach in the matter of  

implementation of the Government policies.  We are of the view that normally  

the  courts  should  not  interfere  with  the  just  policies  framed  by  the  

Government.  In our opinion, the policy decision taken by the Government  

which is reproduced hereinabove dated 18.9.2002, is quite reasonable and it  

has nexus with the purpose which is to be achieved.  In the circumstances, the  

High Court ought not to have become lenient by allowing the petition and by  

awarding incentive increment to the respondent-employee in violation of the  

Government policy .

16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that the High  

Court committed an error while allowing the petition and giving direction  

with regard to giving incentive increment to the respondent-employee and  

therefore, we quash and set aside the said direction. The appeal is allowed  

with no order as to costs.                       

………..........................................J (ANIL R. DAVE)

                           ………..........................................J

                                                     (A.K. SIKRI)

New Delhi August 7, 2013

7