Dismissed

Kanchan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Aug 2023CWJC/19662/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition as not pressed. The court relied on its own precedents holding that Anganbari Sewika posts do not have security of tenure under Article 311 and remedies are limited to damages, granting liberty to approach Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach Civil Court for damages as an alternative remedy. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Kanchan Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19662 of 2014

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Kanchan Kumari W/O Brajesh Kumar, resident of Village-Pirauta,P.SAkabarpur,Distt.-Nawada

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary,Social Welfare Department I.C.D.S, Government of Bihar, Patna

The Deputy Director ,Welfare,Magadh Division,Gaya

¶12

The District Programme Officer ,Distt-Nawada

¶13

The Child Development Programme Officer ,Distt-Nawada

¶14

Sobha Kumari W/O Shri Navin Kumar Resident of Village-Pirauta,P.OKusumhar,BlockP.S-Akabarpur,Distt.-Nawada

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

======================================================

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.- Md. Raisul Haque, SC-4

¶19

======================================================

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGEMENT Date:-03-08-2023

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed

¶22

seeking the following relief:-

¶23

" That this is an application for the issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction for quashing of the order dated 21/9/2013 passed by the Respondent No.4 (District Programme Officer) whereby and where under the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika has been cancelled.

¶24

AND/OR

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.19662 of 2014 dt.03-08-2023 2/5

¶26

To quash the order dated 2/8/2014 passed by the Respondent No.3 (Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh Division) whereby and whereunder an Appeal against the order dated 21/9/2013 of the petitioner has been dismissed."

¶27

At this juncture, this Court would refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others , reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434 , paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

¶28

“7. Having considered the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The charges against the appellant were very clear as would be apparent from the show cause dated 22.02.2012, which was issued in light of the findings in the enquiry report as well as the relevant documents/registers which were required to be maintained at the Centre. Reply given by the appellant, copy of which has been brought on record, does not indicate any

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.19662 of 2014 dt.03-08-2023

¶30

3/5

¶31

justification and rather it has been stated that on 24.09.2011 at the time of Inspection, the children were still coming and on 07.10.2011, she herself had gone to call the children and during that time the inspection was held. It was further stated by the appellant that on 30.09.2011 she had become ill due to being drenched by rain. We find that such explanation is vague and evasive and does not inspire confidence. The spirit and object of running Anganbadi Centres cannot be overemphasized and the purpose is to ensure the welfare of children from the lowermost and deprived strata of society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as well as the procedure adopted by them prior to passing such order.

¶32

8. For the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.19662 of 2014 dt.03-08-2023 4/5

¶34

merit, stands dismissed.”

¶35

It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others , reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20 , paragraphs no. 4 and 5 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

¶36

“4. In our considered view, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India. Considering the very nature of engagement which provides of honorarium, we are of the view that in case the appellant still feels aggrieved, she may approach the Civil Court for damages. There is nothing at stake in such a scheme other than honorarium. For such contractual engagements the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate and even if there is breach of the scheme or any other principle of law, the claim should ordinarily be permitted, if found good on merits, only for damages.

¶37

5. The appeal is dismissed.”

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.19662 of 2014 dt.03-08-2023 5/5

¶39

Considering the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court, as aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

¶40

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶41

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶42

kanchan/-

¶43

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	03.08.2023
Transmission Date	NA

Kanchan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pratap Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Urmila Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Basukli Nath Jha and Anr. Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Co. and Ors.

Satyendra Narayan Singh Vs Multistate Co-operative Lald Development Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shatrughan Kumar Vs The Municipal Commissioner, Patna and Ors.