Partly allowed

Smt. Priyanka v. the Union of India

Rajasthan HC10 Aug 2023CW/11490/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the order dispensing with the petitioner's engagement as an Anganwadi Shayika. Accepting the petitioner's concession to operate at a government building suggested by the State, the court ordered the relevant authorities to quash the disengagement order and directed the petitioner to commence operations at the suggested place from a specified date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 11.11.2019 and 10.07.2020 quashing the petitioner's engagement are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to commence operating the Anganwadi Center at the place suggeste

Smt. Priyanka Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25412]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11490/2020

¶4

Smt. Priyanka W/o Arvind Garg, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Sawai Sanwal, District Churu (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Mahatama Gandhi (Narega Division), Department Of Rural Development, Ministry Of Rural Development, New Delhi.

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director, Women And Child Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Deputy Director Cum Appellate Authority, Women And Child Development Department Churu, District Churu.

¶11

Child Development Project Officer, Sardarshahar (Rural), District Churu.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

10/08/2023

¶17

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.11.2019 whereby, petitioner’s engagement as Anganwadi Shayika has been ordered to be dispensed with.

¶18

Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was insisting upon to operate the Anganwadi Center in a building other than the building assigned by the respondents as it was in dilapidated condition and not fit, due to which reason, the respondent No.5 has dismissed petitioner from the engagement.

¶19

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State, indicating therein that the building to which the petitioner was ordered to shift Anganwadi Center is in good condition and the Anganwadi can be safely operated at such place, which is a Government building earmarked for such purpose.

[2023:RJ-JD:25412]

[CW-11490/2020]

(2 of 2)

When the Court expressed the concern about the petitioner’s attitude, Mr. Khatri submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to shift the Community Center at the place suggested by the State, but her engagement may not be dispensed with for such reason.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot run Anganwadi Center in the Community Hall as against the wishes or directions of the State. But then, disengagement for this reason, that too without providing opportunity of hearing is a decision a bit too harsh. 6. Be that as it may. 7. In view of the concession given by the petitioner that she will operate the Anganwadi Center at the place suggested by the respondent No.5 vide its communication dated 06.11.2019, the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 to the extent of disengaging the petitioner’s honorarium engagement requires to be interfered with.

¶25

The order dated 11.11.2019 (Annex.12) issued by respondent No.5 so also the order dated 10.07.2020 (Annex.17) issued by respondent No.4 are, hereby, quashed.

¶26

It will be required of the petitioner to commence operating the Anganwadi Center at the place as suggested by the respondent No.5 from 14.07.2023.

¶27

The writ petition so also the stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶29

273-Arvind/-

Smt. Priyanka v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priyanka v. the Union of India

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

Managing Committee, Seth G.L. Bihani S.D. Senior Secondary School Vs Mohanlal

Noparam Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S. Ravi Infrabuild Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dinesh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shailendra Kumar Saraf Vs State of Rajasthan