Dismissed

Jaiwanti v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Nov 2019CWP/4907/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Supreme Court, via a Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order upholding the cancellation of an income certificate. The court upheld the Sub-Divisional Officer's finding that income earned from work done in 2006 should not be included in the annual income calculation for the year 2007.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition failed and was dismissed; the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was upheld; interim order vacated.

Jaiwanti Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No.4907 of 2012 Decided on: 06.11.2019

¶3

______________________ Jaiwanti State of HP and Anr.	____________________________________________ ………..Petitioner Versus ……….Respondents
______________________ Coram:	____________________________________________
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sand Whether approved for re	eep Sharma, Judge. porting?¹Yes.
For the Petitioner	: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents	: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.
______________________	Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

By way of present civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dated 12.9.2011 (Annexure P-4), whereby an appeal having been filed by respondent No.4 Ms. Sarojana Devi, against the order passed by the Tehsildar Karsog, came to be decided.

¶6

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that pursuant to interview held on 10.8.2007, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Shalani. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with selection of respondent No.3, petitioner

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

herein filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who while accepting the appeal quashed and set-aside the appointment of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 being dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi, bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 273 of 2008 under clause 12 of Scheme/Guidelines for engagement of Anganwari Workers/helpers.

¶10

3. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 20.2.2009 accepted the appeal and set-aside the order dated 22.2.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and directed that respondent No.3 Smt. Sarojana, who was appointed by the select committee may be allowed to continue

¶11

4. Since petitioner was not satisfied with the aforesaid decision rendered by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, she preferred CWP No. 2445 of 2009 before this court. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.6.2010, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition along with the connected matters with direction to the Deputy Commissioner(s)/Divisional Commissioner(s) of districts/divisions to re-verify the income certificates furnished by the parties in those cases.

¶12

¶13

5. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Division

¶14

Bench of this Court, Tehsildar Karsog in terms of orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, conducted fresh inquiry with respect to income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3. Vide report/order dated 3.1.2011, Tehsildar concerned found income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 to be not genuine and accordingly, cancelled the same. The annual income of respondent No.3 was found to be Rs. 12,330/-.

¶15

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision rendered by the Tehsildar, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karsog, District Mandi (Annexure P-3) on the ground that inquiry report dated 3.1.2011 is not based upon proper appreciation of documents made available to the Tehsildar at the time of inquiry. Respondent No.3 specifically averred in the appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer that Tehsildar neither took into consideration material made available by her nor the earlier inquiry report submitted by the authority concerned. SubDivisional Officer, Karsog, Mandi, vide order dated 12.9.2011, though upheld the order of Tehsildar Karsog i.e. Annexure P-2, to the extent he had concluded that annual income of respondent No.3 is Rs. 12,330/-,

¶16

¶17

but observed that Rs. 1190/- received by Sh. Asam Singh, husband of respondent No.3 in the month of October, 2000, cannot be considered as annual income of the appellant i.e. respondent No.3 and her family because same was received much later after issuance of income certificate. He further observed in the order that sum of Rs. 1190/pertains to work done by husband of the petitioner in June, 2006.

¶18

7. Since vide aforesaid order, Sub-Divisional Officer, Karsog held that sum of Rs. 1190/- received by husband of the appellant in the month of the October, 2007, could not be included in the annual income of respondent No.3, annual income by the Tehsildar Karsog came to be Rs. 11,140/- (i.e. Rs. 12,330/- minus Rs.1190/-), which is less than Rs. 12,000/-. Being aggrieved with aforesaid order, petitioner herein has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer.

¶19

8. Having carefully perused the reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 12.9.2011 vis-à-vis rapat given by the Tehsildar Karsog (Annexure P-2), this Court is not in agreement with Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that Sub Divisional Officer, Karsog, wrongly returned finding that Tehsildar Karsog while

¶20

¶21

determining annual income of respondent No.3 could not have taken into consideration sum of Rs.1190/- received by husband of the petitioner in the month of October, 2007. Mr. Chauhan, was unable to dispute that aforesaid sum of Rs. 1190/- though was actually received by Sh. Asam Singh, husband of the appellantrespondent No.3 in the month of October, 2007 but same was for the work done by him in June, 2006. Since income certificate No. 2556/07 dated 10.5.2007 annexed by respondent No.3 alongwith her application for the post of Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Shalani, pertains to year, 2007, Sub Divisional Officer, Karsog rightly observed that money, if any, received in the year, 2007 qua the work done by the husband of respondent No.3 in June, 2006 ought not have taken into consideration by the Tehsildar while calculating the income.

¶22

9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as document/evidence led on record by respondent No.3 and as such, same is upheld.

¶23

¶24

Accordingly, present petition fails and dismissed being devoid of any

¶25

merits. Interim order if any, stands vacated.

¶26

6^th November, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge

Jaiwanti v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiwanti v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jung Bahadur Singh Bawa Vs Anju Sharma and Another

Sandeep Sharma Vs Narinder Sharma

Harnaam Singh and Another Vs Shrikant Baldi and Others

Bhau Ram Vs Kamla Devi

The Executive Engineer Iph Bilaspur and Another Vs Mahima and Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs Yunish Khan and Another