Allahabad High Court
Swati Kumari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 20 September, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64982 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8017 of 2024 Petitioner :- Swati Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Dixit,Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of State-respondent No.s 1 to 4.
2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. The petitioner, who is Pradhan of Village Panchayat Ranjeetpur Lonari, Block Dalmau, Tehsil Dalmau, District Reabareli, has approached this Court assailing the order dated 12.4.2024 by which respondent No.5, who is working on the post of Panchayat Assistant, has been granted honorarium for the period from July, 2023 to August, 2024.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on previous occasion respondent No.5 was absent from duty and an inquiry in this regard was held and by mans of order dated 6.6.2023 it was found by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Raebareli that during 1.4.2023 to 31.3.2023 respondent No.5 was on maternity leave and, therefore, did not attend to her duties and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that during the period she was on maternity leave she has not been paid any honorarium. In the writ petition in paragraph 9 it is indicated that the petitioner has moved an application under Right to Information Act with regard to the irregularities committed by respondent No.5 and further it is alleged that she has not discharged her obligations in letter and spirit and has not attended her duties regularly and in aforesaid circumstances prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to release her honorarium as directed by the impugned order dated 12.4.2024.
5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that Panchayat Assistant looks after day-to-day work in panchayats pertaining to data entry and other ministerial jobs for which they are paid honorarium of Rs.6,000/- per month.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is continuously making allegations against the private respondent with regard to her work and conduct and also moving repeated applications under Right to Information Act which seems to be malafide on behalf of the petitioner, who is Village Pradhan against respondent No.5. The previous allegations leveled by the petitioner were disposed of vide order dated 6.6.2023 where it was found hat respondent No.5 did not attend her duties only because of her maternity leave. It is not expected that a person of the stature of a Pradhan should make repeated allegations against a Panchayat Assistant and grievance, if any, can be raised before the competent authority including District Panchayat Raj Officer, who can duly consider her grievances and in case any allegation is found to be correct pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, this Court, at its discretion, is not inclined to interfere with the said matter where the honorarium of the Panchayat Assistant has been directed to be paid. Even in the present petition, there is no details of the days on which respondent No.5 has failed to attend her duties and the allegations are vague and no credence can be given to them nor cognizance taken by this Court to interfere in the impugned order.
7. In light of the above, the writ petition being bereft of merits is dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.9.2024 RKM.