AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.
By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff vide judgment and
decree dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.07A/2011 affirming the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court dated 31.10.2008 passed by the learned 11th Civil Judge Class II, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.15A/2010, whereby the
learned Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below have legally erred in holding that the plaintiff is not
entitled for the benefit of one advance increment on account of undergoing sterilization operation as per Family Welfare Scheme of the Government.
As such, the appeal involves substantial question of law for determination and deserves to be admitted.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions made hereinÂabove and also went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
The plaintiff filed a suit that he is entitled for one advance increment on account of undergoing sterilization operation for family planning by virtue of
the circular of the Government, which the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both have dismissed holding that it is not applicable to the daily
wager employee, as the petitioner was appointed as the daily wager employee w.e.f. 02.02.1987, whereas her services were regularized w.e.f.
26.04.1997, therefore, the benefit of the said increment cannot be extended to the daily wager, as admittedly the petitioner underwent sterilization
operation on 13.04.1989 before her regularization on the post of Clerk/LDC on 26.04.1997.
The finding recorded by both the Courts below that the appellant is not entitled for one advance increment on account of undergoing sterilization
operation for family planning being daily wager on the date of operation is a finding of fact based on the material available on record, which is neither
perverse nor contrary to law.
I do not find any substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without
notice to the other side. No order as to cost (s).