Kiran Raj

In a recent judgement, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by Justice Subodh Abhyanka adjudicated that individuals who undergo sterilization (vasectomy/tubectomy) for family planning purposes before joining government service are entitled to the benefits outlined in government schemes, provided their actions align with the policy's objectives.

The court quashed the recovery orders issued against the petitioner, Gori Saxena, a Staff Nurse, and delineated the equitable application of the scheme's provisions in light of its intent to promote family planning.

The petitioner, employed as a Staff Nurse, was granted an advance increment in 2013 based on a government circular dated July 25, 2001. This circular incentivized government employees to undergo sterilization to promote family planning initiatives. However, in 2022, the respondent authorities initiated recovery proceedings, demanding ₹2,51,038 from the petitioner. The recovery was premised on the claim that the petitioner underwent sterilization prior to February 24, 2010, before joining government service, thereby rendering her ineligible for the benefits.

The petitioner challenged these proceedings on the grounds that the sterilization was a voluntary act consistent with the policy’s objectives and that the recovery notice was issued without affording her an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner argued that the policy’s primary aim was to promote family planning by incentivizing sterilization, irrespective of whether the sterilization occurred before or after joining government service. Counsel for the petitioner contended that:

1. The recovery was initiated without due process, violating principles of natural justice.
2. The retrospective denial of benefits constituted a misinterpretation of the scheme.
3. Reliance was placed on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 536), wherein the Supreme Court held that recoveries based on erroneous interpretations of rules are impermissible unless fraud or misrepresentation is involved.

The state argued that eligibility for the benefit under the circular required that the individual be a government servant at the time of sterilization. The respondents asserted that this condition was explicitly stipulated in the scheme, rendering the petitioner ineligible.

The court observed that the intent of the circular was to promote family planning and that denying benefits to individuals who voluntarily contributed to this objective before joining government service contradicted the policy's purpose. Justice Abhyankar remarked:

“…if a public spirited person, regardless of the fact whether he is a government servant or not, unselfishly gets himself/herself operated upon for family planning, such person cannot be deprived of the benefit of the aforesaid circular which provides for advance increments to government servants opting for family planning.”

The court further held that recovery of benefits granted years earlier, based on an alternative interpretation of the policy, was inequitable. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Thomas Daniel, the court affirmed that recoveries in such situations cause undue hardship and are impermissible in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.

The court quashed the impugned recovery orders dated February 22, 2022, and August 8, 2022, holding them unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner’s entitlement to the benefit was affirmed.

Case Title: Gori Saxena v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Directorate Ayush and Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 28689 of 2022

Bench Details: Justice Subodh Abhyankar

[Read/Download Judgment]