Smt. Neelam Kasar vs Municipal Corp.,Durg
2021 Latest Caselaw 618 Chatt

                                 1

                                                             NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       SA No.120 of 2012

      Smt. Neelam Kasar, aged 54 years, W/o Shri
       Nand   Kishore  Kasar,   Sahayak   Grade­III,
       Municipal Corporation, Durg (C.G.)

                                               ­­­­ Appellant

                              Versus

      Municipal Corporation, Durg through the
       Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg,
       Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.)

                                              ­­­­ Respondent

For Appellant Mr. V. K. Sharma, Advocate

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

25/06/2021

1. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in this second

appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellant, considered his submissions made

herein­above and also went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

Sd/­ Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Nirala