THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGYversusM.K. BAWANE

                    [2013] 8 S.C.R. 155


 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY                       A
                    & OTHERS.
                         v.
                   M.K. BAWANE
          (Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2013)
                     AUGUST 7, 2013                               B

          [ANIL R. DAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

      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 not interfere with the
just policies framed by the Government. The policy
decision taken by the Government dated 18.9.2002, is
                                                              E
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. The High
Court committed an error while allowing the petition and      F
giving direction with regard to giving incentive increment
to the respondent-employee and therefore, the said
direction is quashed and set aside. [Paras 15, 16) [161-
H; 162-A-D]
                                                              G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6389 of 2013.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2010 of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition
No. 24132 of 2009.                                            H
    158       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A       Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Arpita, Shreekant N. Terdal for the
    Appellants.

        Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG, Surya Kant for the
    Respondents.
B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Delay condoned.

          2. Leave granted.
c        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
D 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 undertaken by his wife and
E 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
F 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.
G
        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-
H employment. The appellant-organization had recorded the
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY v. 159
       M.K. BAWANE [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
reason and conveyed the same to the respondent-employee              A
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
                                                                     B
    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."

     6. Not being satisfied with the rejection of the application,   c
the respondent-employee had filed Writ Petition No.24132 of
2009 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging fhe
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.                      D
     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            E
with regard to givi_ng 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          F
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      G
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 incentive, if the
sterilization operation was undergone prior to the re-
employment.
                                                                     H
    160      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A        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
8
    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
C 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
D High Court directed to give the same benefit to the respondent-
  employee in terms of parity.

        12. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we
  find that there was some special reason for which the above
E 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
F 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
G respondent-employee had clearly ~ferred 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:

H
SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY v. 161
       M.K. BAWANE [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
    "incentive not admissible to the re-employed person who          A
    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.                            B

     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.
                                                                     c
     3.     It has been clarified by Ministry of Finance vide l.P.
            No.587/E-111 (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       D
            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/              E
            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
                                                                     F
            re-employment.

     4.     Any such cases pending in your circle may be
            disposed of based on this clarification given by
            Ministry of Finance."
                                                                     G
     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       H
    162      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A effort made by the Government to control the size of the family
  members of its employees would 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
B 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
c 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
D 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.

    B.B.B.                                       Appeal allowed.