Quashed

Smt. Mini Bai Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC26 Aug 2024WPS/6455/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging orders cancelling the petitioner's appointment as an Anganwadi Worker was disposed of. The Court held that subsequent orders were unsustainable in law, particularly given the petitioner's continuous service since 2011 under an interim order and the expiration of a co-respondent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of 01.06.2007, 01.02.2011 and 20.11.2014 were quashed. No specific order regarding reinstatement was necessary.

Smt. Mini Bai Patel Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:32480

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6455 of 2014

¶6

Smt. Mini Bai Patel S/o Bhagwat Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Awari, Tah And Ps Doundi, Dist Balod, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Develoment Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Commissioner, Durg Division, Dist Durg, Cg

¶11

The Additional Collector Durg, Dist Durg, Now Distt Balod, Cg

¶12

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Doundi, Dist Balod, Cg

¶13

The Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project, Doundi, Dist Balod, Cg

¶14

Suhaga Bai D/o Mahesh Ram Gond R/o Village Awari, Tah And Ps Doundi, Dist Balod, Cg

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Shivendu Singh , Advocate holding the brief of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For State	: Mr . Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Government Advocate
Respondent No. 6 was represented by	: Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

2 7.08.2024

¶21

At the very outset, it is informed by Mr. Pallav Mishra that respondent No.

¶22

6/Suhaga Bai who was contesting respondent in this petition has expired.

¶23

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶24

¶25

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Anganwadi Worker, Gram panchayat Awari.

¶26

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker, Center No. 3, Gram Panchayat, Awari vide Order dated 08.12.2006. He further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the appointing authority vide Order dated 01.06.2007 and that was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Durg (now Balod) and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 01.02.2011. He also submitted that a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Durg Division and the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 20.11.2014 and in this petition all the orders have been challenged. It is further contended that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Doundi only on the ground that the petitioner was not accepted by the Village Community. It is also contended that by virtue of the interim order granted in her favour, the petitioner has been working in the post of Anganwadi Worker since 2011 and at present, the Village Community has accepted the petitioner.

¶28

On the other hand, Mr. Atanu Ghosh, the learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose. He fairly submitted that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 6 has expired.

¶29

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been working in the post of Anganwadi Worker since 2011 by virtue of the interim order granted

¶30

¶31

in her favour and respondent No. 6 has expired, in the opinion of this Court, the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Doundi, Additional Collector Durg (now Balod) and Commissioner, Durg Division dated 01.06.2007, 01.02.2011 and 20.11.2014, respectively, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and all the orders stated above are hereby quashed. As the petitioner is already in service; there is no need to pass any specific order with regard to her reinstatement.

¶32

With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of .

¶33

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

$iddhant

Smt. Mini Bai Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mini Bai Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Meshram Vs Advocate General

Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhirendra Vishwakarma Vs Rasheed Hasmi

Bishnu Pada Ghosh Vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Ors.

Premshankar Brahmbhatta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr. Vandana Gour Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.