Dismissed

Basanti Rani v. Social Welfare Women and Child Development Dept

Jharkhand HC1 Feb 2023WPC/5114/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner appealed quashing of termination order as Aanganbari Sevika for three-year absence. Court found no satisfactory explanation for absenteeism, no leave taken, and no reply to show-cause notice. Dismissed petition and remanded matter to Deputy Commissioner to verify appeal status.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; matter remanded to Deputy Commissioner to consider pending appeal within four weeks.

Basanti Rani Vs Social Welfare Women and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 5114 of 2013

Basanti Rani

… … Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Secretary, Social Welfare and Women Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Jharkhand.

¶10

Deputy Commissioner, Dumka

¶11

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka

¶12

The District Welfare Officer, Dumka

¶13

The Child Development Project Officer, Jama, Dumka

¶14

Smt. Shanti Soren, C/o. Sri Somri Marandi, Resident of Village – Chigalpahari, Saraktola, P.O. – Nonihathwari, P.S. –Jama, District – Dumka.

¶15

… … Respondents

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE DR JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶17

For the Petitioner Mr. D. C. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, AC to SC-III

¶18

03/01.02.2023 Heard.

¶19

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 20.01.2011, passed by District Social Welfare Officer, Dumka whereby respondent no. 6 has recommended for termination of the petitioner from the post of Aanganbari Sevika and further directed to select respondent no. 8 as a new Sevika by holding fresh Aam Sabha. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the selection of respondent no. 8 as a Aanganbari Sevika since the selection dated 20.05.2011 was not in accordance with procedure.

¶20

Case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as an Aanbanbari Sevika vide letter no. 33, dated 28.06.1991, issued by CDPO, Jama, Dumka. It is case of the petitioner that she was on sick leave from 10.11.2007 to 14.11.2007 and, thereafter, she reached the centre on 15.11.2007 for joining the duty but her Supervisor namely Kiran Bhogta directed her not to work there and further directed her to approach before the CDPO, Jama. However, CDPO, Jama also did not allow her to

¶21

RC/

¶22

¶23

join. Petitioner filed several representation before the respondents for allowing her to join the post of Aanbanbari Sevika as she was on leave for four days only but no heed was paid to the representation. Thereafter, the respondents authorities, taking into consideration complaint that petitioner had deserted the post for three long years, after issuance of show-cause notice and getting her reply being not satisfied, dismissed her from the service on account of long absence and hence this writ petition has been preferred.

¶24

Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents authorities, without adhering to the process of law, has passed the order of dismissal which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that it was the respondents who did not allow the petitioner to join the service. She was absent only for four days and it was only the respondents who did not allow the petitioner to join for three years and without initiation of any proceeding, her services have been dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that CDPO has terminated the petitioner on the recommendations of the District Welfare Officer whereas the same ought to have been issued on the direction of Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka. Learned counsel further submits that since there are several follies in the impugned order and as such the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded back for reconsideration.

¶25

Learned counsel representing State very fairly submits that petitioner was absent for three long years. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards the guideline for termination of Aanbanbari Sevika. Referring to para-16 of the guidelines, terms and conditions, learned counsel submits that as per the guidelines, any Aanbanbari Sevika or Sahayika, whose work is not found satisfactory and if he or she is absent for more than 15 days, a show-cause has to be issued and, thereafter, CDPO, after prior approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner, shall remove the said Aanbanbari Sevika from the services. The order of termination/ removal shall be passed by the CDPO. Learned counsel further argues that not a single chit of paper has been produced by the petitioner to show as to whether any leave was taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that no representation has been annexed with the writ petition to show as to whether

¶26

RC/

¶27

¶28

petitioner moved before the authorities for reconsideration of her case or for her reinstatement. In absence of any document brought on record, the order of dismissal/ removal is fully justified.

¶29

Having heard rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in this writ petition. Petitioner has deserted the office of Aanbanbari Sevika for three long years. The absenteeism for three long years has not been explained. Petitioner has taken the plea that she was on mental leave. Not a single chit of paper has been shown as to whether she had taken leave from the respondents authorities. Petitioner was issued show-cause notice but she failed to reply the same. Petitioner never approached before the authorities. Plea has been taken that she had preferred Appeal and the same was pending for eleven years. Fresh appointment has been made on the post of Aanbari Sevika on 20.05.2011 itself. Petitioner was fully aware of the fresh appointment. Instead of approaching before Village Level Committee, she has challenged the order of termination on technical grounds. However, since plea of the petitioner that Appeal is pending, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka shall consider the same and if Appeal is pending, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶30

With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶32

RC/

Basanti Rani v. Social Welfare Women and Child Development Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanti Rani v. Social Welfare Women and Child Development Dept

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

Sayed Abdul Khalique Vs Comercial Taxes

Arjun Prasad Vs Water Resources Department

Vijaya Florance Tiru Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Information and Public Relation Department and Ors.

Chhabi Murmo Vs Collectariate

Darogi Singh Vs Chief Secretory

Lakshmi Narayan and Anr. Vs Water Resources Departement