Dismissed

Sumna Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC29 Nov 2017CWP/319/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders denying the petitioner the post of Anganwari Worker. Ruling that the petitioner's husband admitted earning Rs. 3,000 monthly, placing the family income above the eligibility limit. Held that the impugned orders were upheld.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders upheld. Legal representatives of the petitioner dismissed; pending applications vacated.

Sumna Devi Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 319 of 2016

¶3

Date of decision: 29.11.2017.

¶4

Sumna Devi …Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others ..Respondents.

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ No

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶11

Ms. Keertika Mehta, Advocate, vice Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶12

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral )

¶13

It is finally that curtain on the long drawn and chequered history of litigation has been finally drawn. Even though the dispute only pertains to the post of Anganwari Worker. However, the petitioner has left no stone unturned to ensure that she remains in service irrespective of the three orders passed by the successive authorities below in the hierarchal order. However, before delving into the relative merits of the case, the bare necessary facts may be noted.

¶14

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes

¶15

¶16

The official respondents 1 to 4 are implementing the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS) in the State through the wide network of 18,925 Anganwari Centres. The main object of the Scheme is to provide package of services to the children upto 6 years of age and lactating/pregnant women by providing them services like supplementary nutrition, immunization, health check-up, health and nutrition education and referral services in an integrated manner. The children in the age group of 3-6 years are also provided nonformal pre-school education. For delivery of these services, Anganwari Centre has two honorary workers from amongst the local community appointed as Anganwari Worker and Helper. The selection of these Anganwari Worker/Helper is made by a selection committee headed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C) in accordance with the guidelines framed to this effect.

¶17

Adverting to the facts, the interview for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Thana was conducted on 6.8.2007 wherein the petitioner was selected and the respondent No.5 was kept in the waiting list. The petitioner accordingly joined on 14.8.2007. However, her selection and appointment came to be challenged by

¶18

¶19

respondent No.5, who preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, who vide his order dated 5.9.2009 allowed the appeal and set-aside the selection of the petitioner. The order so passed was challenged in appeal before the respondent No.2, however, even this appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2010. This constrained the petitioner to file CWP No. 2138 of 2010 before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 30.6.2010 and the respondent No.4 was directed to enquire into the genuineness of the income certificate(s) of the petitioner as well as that of respondent No.5.

¶20

On 3.5.2013, respondent No.4 upheld the income certificate issued in favour of both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5. This constrained the respondent No.5 to file an appeal before the respondent No.3, who remanded the case to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration. Respondent No.4 thereafter conducted an inquiry and on the basis of such inquiry cancelled the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner vide his order dated 16.12.2014 and at the same time upheld the income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.5. This order was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No.3, who vide its order dated 22.6.2015 dismissed the appeal.

¶21

¶22

Undeterred, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2. However, even this appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 4.12.2015.

¶23

Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders passed by respondent No.4 on 16.12.2014, respondent No.3 on 22.6.2015 and respondent No.2 on 04.12.2015 on the grounds that these orders have been passed against the law and facts of the case and are based on surmises and conjectures.

¶24

Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed separate reply wherein preliminary submissions like the petitioner having not approached the Court with clean hands and having concealed the material facts etc. were taken. On merits, the decision rendered by respondents No. 2 to 4 are sought to be supported on the ground that it was after thorough inquiry that respondent No.4 had cancelled the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and such order need to be upheld as the same are duly supported by the material collected during the course of inquiry.

¶25

Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their separate reply wherein like respondents No. 1 and 2, they have also sought to justify their action on the basis that it was after detailed inquiry and appreciating the evidence that

¶26

¶27

respondent No.4 had proceeded to cancel the income certificate of the petitioner.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record. In addition thereto, I have also gone through the records produced by the office of A.D.M., Kangra at Dharamshala in compliance to the directions passed to this effect by this Court on 15.11.2017.

¶29

It is not even disputed by the petitioner that her husband at the time of selection was working as a Salesman in “ Magna Mal Parmeshwari Dass” Committee Gali, Main Bazar, Kangra. It is also not disputed that being a Salesman he covered under the Minimum Wages Act and the requisite forms were submitted by his employer and the same were duly signed by the husband of the petitioner. This fact is further proved from the form submitted by the husband of the petitioner at the time of inspection of the premises on 30.4.2009 wherein he himself admitted to be drawing a salary of `3,000/-per month. It shall be apposite to reproduce in detail such statement, which reads thus:

¶30

“�ी कुलद�प चंद सपु� �ी �कशोर� लाल गाँव बंड डाकखाना दोहग –देह�रया तहसील देहरा �जला काँगड़ा �हमाचल �देश ने बयान �कया �क वह �पछले तीन साल से मे�सस� मंगना मल परमे�र�

¶31

¶32

दास क� दुकान म� बतौर काय� कर रहा ह�1 कामगर ने बयान �कया �क उसे मु०3000/-� �ित माह क� दर से वेतन िमलता ह�1 कामगर ने बयान �कया �क उसे त�खाह �तेयक माह क� 7 तार�क से पहले िमल जाती ह�1 इस दुकान क� िनयोजक इस समय �वतं�ता देवी ह�1

¶33

कुलद�प चंद 30.4.09.”

¶34

In view of the aforesaid statement, there virtually remains nothing to be adjudicated in this petition as it is more than settled that admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission.

¶35

That apart, even the petitioner cannot regal out of admission made by her husband because even as per her admitted case as set up in appeal before the authorities below as also before this Court, it is specifically averred that her husband was working at the relevant time and currently working as Salesman in “Magna Mal Parmeshwari Dass” Committee Gali, Main Bazar, Kangra. Though, it is a different matter that she would claim that her husband was only being paid a sum of `600/- per month which statement obviously stands belied from the statement made by the husband himself (supra).

¶36

Now that the income of the family of the petitioner is proved to be `36,000/- per annum as against the

¶37

¶38

prescribed income of `12,000/- per annum and obviously, therefore, she is ineligible for even being considered much less being appointed as Anganwari Worker. Therefore, no fault can be found with the orders passed by the various authorities as have been impugned herein.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Interim order dated 11.2.2016 is ordered to be vacated.

¶40

29^th November, 2017 ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (GR) Judge

Sumna Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumna Devi v. State of Hp

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

Tilak Raj Vs Udham Singh

Vinod Kumar Vs Naveen Kumar

Prem Chand Vs Prem Singh

Anil Kumar Jamwal Vs Reena Devi

Manoj Thakur Vs Mast Ram Pathak

Murari Lal Vs Durga Dass