Disposed

Smt Nagadevi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023WP/56629/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the petitioner entitled to payment for three years of work performed as Anganawadi Assistant under a Panchayat resolution, directing the Government to pay her honorarium within two months while reserving the right to recover such payment from the Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be paid the requisite honorarium for the period she discharged duties as an Anganawadi Assistant within two months of receiving a copy of this order.

Smt Nagadevi Vs State of Karnataka — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44888 WP No. 56629 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 56629 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT NAGADEVI

¶8

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O GOVINDAPPA SAGARASANAHALLI VILLAGE KAMASANDRA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. JAYALAKSHMI K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT

¶15

VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 114

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44888 WP No. 56629 of 2018

¶19

KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 114

¶20

THE CHILD AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BANGARPET TALUK BANGARPET - 563 114

¶21

SMT. PARVATHAMMA MAJOR W/O KENCHAPPA SAKARASANAHALLI DONINADAGU POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 113.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B. AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5 - SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2018 APPOINTING THE R-5 AS ANGANAVADI ASSISTANT TO SAKARASANAHALLI ANGANAVADI CENTRE VIDE ANENXURE-E BY RETAINING THE PETITIONER AS ANGANAVADI ASSISTANT TO THE SAKARASANAHALLI ANGANAVADI CENTRE AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is challenging the order dated

¶28

10.08.2018 (Annexure-'E') appointing respondent No.5 as

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44888 WP No. 56629 of 2018

¶30

an Anganawadi Assistant at Sakarasanahalli Anganawadi Centre, Donimadagu Post, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District.

¶31

The contention of respondent - State is that the petitioner was possessing the educational qualification upto 4^th Standard and whereas, respondent No.5 was possessing the educational qualification upto 7^th Standard and as a consequence of being better qualified, respondent No.5 was appointed as an Anganawadi Assistant.

¶32

In my view, since respondent No.5 was better qualified than the petitioner, the Authorities were justified in appointing respondent No.5 and therefore, there is no merit in the challenge of appointment of respondent No.5 as an Anganawadi Assistant.

¶33

However, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Grama Panchayat, Donimadagu, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District, by way of resolution dated 27.03.2017, had appointed the petitioner

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44888 WP No. 56629 of 2018

¶35

as an Anganawadi Assistant after her mother passed away

¶36

and since her mother was working as an Anganawadi Assistant, by virtue of this resolution, the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of her mother and as a matter of fact, she has worked for a period of three years.

¶37

The petitioner seeks to place reliance on Annexure-'A', which indicates that the Panchayat and the villagers had unanimously appointed the petitioner to discharge the work that her mother was carrying on.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, submits that the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner and therefore, she cannot claim any right on this basis.

¶39

Whether the Panchayat had the jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner or not, the fact remains that as per Annexure-'A', the petitioner was appointed and she has discharged her duties as an Anganawadi Assistant. In this view of the matter, the petitioner would have to be

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44888 WP No. 56629 of 2018

¶41

necessarily paid for this period during which she has discharged her duties as an Anganwadi Assistant. If the Panchayat had illegally appointed the petitioner, then, it is open for the Government to pay the petitioner the requisite honorarium for the period during which she had worked and thereafter proceed to recover the same from the Panchayat. The said payment shall be made to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

VGR

Smt Nagadevi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagadevi v. State of Karnataka

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

Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh Vs the General Manager-H

Karnataka Rajya Anudanitha Shikshana Samsthegala Okkuta Vs Department of Education (Primary and Secondary Education)

Sri. S. Marigowda Vs the Commissioner of Collegiate Education

Dr Darshan B B Vs Mandya Institute of

Sri Santosh Mallanagouda Meti Vs the General Manager

Sri K G Venkatesh Vs Canara Bank