CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 05 MP CK 0068

Roop Narayan Sahu vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 6 May 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Yadav, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
W.P. No. 4198 of 2014
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 328 words

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.

2.

Communication dated 1.6.2013 entered into between District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development Department, Narsinghpur and Incharge, Grievance Redressal Cell, Narsinghpur is being assailed vide this writ petition.

3.

Petitioner in a Jan Sunvai on 28.5.2013 by Collector had lodged a complaint that he has not been given the benefit of Ladli Laxmi Yojna.

4.

On enquiry it was found that on a daughter born to the petitioner on 4.3.2007 he was advised that after tubectomy/vasectomy operation within one year of second delivery the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit. That, second daughter was born on 23.8.2009; wherein the petitioner was advised to undergo operation within one year. The petitioner since did not abide by the advise was held not entitled for the benefit under Ladli Laxmi Yojna as the operation was after 2 years on 26.11.2011.

5.

The State Government with an object to promote all round well being of a girl child, introduced Ladli Laxmi Yojna in exercise of powers conferred by the provisions contained Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewa Pradan Ki Guarantee Act, 2010, vide notification No. F. 308-05-01-2010 dated 24.9.2011. Whereafter, circular No. F/152/PSWCD/2011 dt. 2.12.2011 was issued laying down the eligibility criteria, relevant for the present case are extracted below:

6.

As evident from the facts of present case the petitioner did not adhere to the Schedule as prescribed under the scheme and thus it was found that the complaint lodged by the petitioner against non grant of benefit was found baseless.

7.

In view whereof no interference is caused with the impugned communication.

8.

The petitioner, however, is at liberty to file an appeal before Collector assigning cogent reasons for the cause of delay. In case such an appeal is preferred, the Collector shall objectively dwell upon the same on merit and decide it within three months, keeping in view the object of the scheme.

9.

Petition is finally disposed of in above terms. No costs.