LexTHE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY versus M.K. BAWANE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 155 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY & OTHERS. v. M.K. BAWANE (Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2013) AUGUST 7, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Service Law - Incentive increment - To re-employed persons - For undergoing sterilization operation - Respondent C re-employed as a Male Nurse - Entitlement of respondent - Held: Not entitled - Policy of the Government was to the effect that a re-employed person was not entitled to such incentive increment, if he or his spouse had undergone sterilization operation prior to his re-employment - Tribunal justified in o rejecting the claim of respondent in view of such policy, since sterilization operation was undertaken by wife of respondent, prior to his re-employment - Policy decision taken by the Government was quite reasonable and had nexus with the. purpose to be achieved - High Court ought not to have E become lenient by allowing the writ petition of respondent and awarding incentive increment to him in violation of the Government policy - G.I., Department of Posts letter No.6~21 1999 (Mis.)-PAP, dated 18.9.2002. Government Policy - Interference with - Scope - Held: F Normally the courts should not interfere with the just policies framed by the Government. Government Policy - Implementation - Duty of [he Court - Held: Courts not to take lenient approach in the matter of G implementation of Government policies. Precedent - Mistake committed in one case cannot be treated as a precedent. 155 H 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 8 S.C.R. A 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 undertaken by his wife and therefore, as per the policy B of the appellant-organization, he was entitled to one incentive increment for promoting small family norms. The respondent was, however, not given the increment and therefore, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected his application relying C 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. The respondent-employee filed Writ Petition challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal. The petition was D allowed and the High Court directed the appellants to give special incentive increment to the respondent- employee. The High Court observed in its judgment that in some other cases, benefit of incentive increment was given even after re-employment and therefore, the case E of respondent-employee ought to have been considered favorably by the employer. For some special reason in an order passed by the Tribunal in the case of one 'V', though re-employed, incentive increment was granted and therefore, the High Court directed to give the same F benefit to the respondent-employee in terms of parity. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On perusal of the order passed by the G Tribunal in the case of 'V, it is found that there was some special reason for which 'V' was granted the benefit of incentive increment, though the Tribunal has not given the special reason for which that benefit was given to the said retired employee. It is not known whether in the said H SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY v. 157 M.K. BAWANE case, which was decided on 20.12.2004, 'V' had A 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. [Para 12) [160-E-F] B 2. 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 is contained in G.I., Department of Posts letter No.6-2/1999 (Mis.)-PAP, dated 18.9.2002. The Tribunal was absolutely justified in rejecting the application of the respondent- C employee in view of the aforestated policy of the Government. [Paras 13, 14) [160-G-H; 161-G] 3. A small effort made by the Government to control the size of the family members of its employees would 0 also go in vain if courts would take such lenient approach in the matter of implementation of the Government policies. Normally the courts should no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.