Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anita Devi vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 2 January, 2019
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 678 of 2016
Decided on: 2.1.2019
__________________________________________________________________
.
Anita Devi ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors. ..........Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Thakur and
Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. Amit Dhumal, Deputy
Advocate General, for the State.
Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
__________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:
i. That the impugned orders dated 09/12/2013 passed by the ld Deputy Commissioner in Case No.1/2013 at Annexure P-
7, and orders 28/12/2015 passed by the CDPO annexed herewith as annexure P-8 whereby the selection and appointment of the Petitioner as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Mungtial, P.O. Takili, Distt. Kangra, has been quashed and some other official has been ordered to take the charge as such, and the Petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue working as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Mungtial, Distt. Kangra. ii. That the orders dated 30/31/2012 Annexure P-5 passed by the ld. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Nurpur, District Kangra in Appeal No. 15/2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside."1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP 2
2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that pursuant to notice inviting application issued by respondent No.3, petitioner applied .
for the post of Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Mungtial, Distt.
Kangra, H.P. Petitioner was selected against the aforesaid post of Anganwari worker and was appointed as such in the month of July, 2007.
However, fact remains that selection of the petitioner came to be laid challenge by respondent No. 4 (Smt. Anupama Kumari), who filed complaint before the Additional District Magistrate Kangra, at Dharamshala, who vide order dated 30.6.2012, passed in appeal No. 24/2007, quashed the selection and appointment of the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, at Dharamshala, praying therein for quashing of order dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure P-3). Learned Divisional Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner Kangra for taking decision afresh
3. Pursuant to aforesaid remand order passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra, Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, called for the report with regard to income of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 from Tehsildar, Nurpur, who vide letter dated 30.9.2011, submitted his report to the learned Appellate authority-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala (Annexure P-4). Appellate authority-
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP 3cum-Additional District Magistrate, on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar, Nurpur, set-aside the appointment of the petitioner vide .
impugned order dated 30.6.2012, and ordered that person next in the merit, be appointed on the post of Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Mungtial, District Kangra, H.P.
4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, at Dharamshala, petitioner herein preferred a writ petition bearing CWP No. 7066 of 2012- G, claiming therein that she was not getting any pension and claimed that certificate issued by the Senior Manager (Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd.), clearly suggests that she was getting some money on account of death of her husband. She also alleged before this Court that her late husband had filed affidavit in the Panchayat concerned in the year, 2003, affirming therein that he had separated from the family but entry in the record was made in the year, 2006. This Court without going into the correctness of the submissions having been made by the parties in those proceedings remanded the case back to the Deputy Commissioner, with a direction to decide the case afresh.
5. This Court while passing order dated 28.5.2013, ordered that Deputy Commissioner will ascertain as to whether the certificate (Annexure R4/4) on record stating therein that the petitioner is drawing ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP 4 pension on behalf of her late husband is correct state of affairs or not.
Secondly, he shall also ascertain as to why once the late husband of the .
petitioner, had submitted an affidavit in the Panchayat with respect to the separation of the family in the year 2003, entry was made in the year, 2006.
6. Pursuant to aforesaid direction contained in order dated 28.5.2013, passed by this Court while disposing of CWP No. 7066 of 2012-G, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala has passed fresh order (Annexure P-7) holding the petitioner to be ineligible to occupy the post of Anganwari worker, with a further direction to implement the order/direction issued by the District Magistrate on 30.6.2012. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings with a prayer to set-aside the same and allow the petitioner to continue as Anganwari worker pursuant to her appointment made in July, 2007.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully.
8. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it may be noticed that though Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice in the instant petition had directed the parties to maintain the status quo, but learned counsel for the parties have fairly acknowledged before this ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP 5 Court that at the time of passing of order dated 22.3.2016, petitioner was not continuing as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Mungtial, Distt.
.
Kangra, H.P., meaning thereby, post at Anganwari centre, is still lying vacant though there is a direction contained in the impugned order to implement the order dated 30.6.2012, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, whereby he has specifically ordered that person second in merit be appointed as Anganwari worker in place of the petitioner herein.
9. Having carefully perused impugned order dated 9.12.2013, (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in compliance to the direction contained in judgment dated 26.5.2013, passed by this Court while disposing of the CWP No. 7066 of 2012-G, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Naresh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner that order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition.
Rather, careful perusal of impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner clearly reveals that Deputy Commissioner before proceedings to decide the matter afresh, formulated two points for determination as were formulated by the court while passing judgment dated 26.5.2013. Deputy Commissioner in his order has specifically recorded that three revenue officials i.e. Tehsildar Nurpur, SDO Civil, Nurpur and ADM Kangra, have looked into the income status of both the ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP 6 petitioner and the respondent and have arrived at a conclusion that annual income of the petitioner was Rs. 1,52,200/- whereas the income of .
respondent was Rs. 7,500/- at the time of interview. Impugned order further reveals that petitioner-Smt. Anita Devi was asked to provide evidence to the effect that her family income was within the prescribed limit at the time of the interview. She made available two documents disclosing therein that Shri Chain Singh, S/o Shri Madu Ram, expired on 31.8.2005 and his wife Anita Devi (present petitioner) is not drawing any type of pension from the company-Electrolux, expect death claims. The other document issued by the Gram Panchayat Takoli-Girtha discloses that application for family separation was given by Shri Chain Singh on 14.11.2003, but same was implemented on 11.4.2006 only. Deputy Commissioner carefully perused certificate given by the Senior Manager of the company (Electrolux, Kelvinator Ltd) vide reference No. EKL/10/11/2008 dated 10.11.2008 (page 23 of ADM office file) and certificate issued by the Branch Manager SBI Bharmar available on ADM office file pages No. 29-31, perusal whereof suggests that petitioner is drawing some benefits from the company where her late husband was working. Certified copy given by the Senior Manager of the company clearly suggests that petitioner is in receipt of some amount every month.
No doubt, documents placed on record suggest that petitioner is not in ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP 7 receipt of pension, but certainly she is in receipt of some amount, whether it is on account of pension or death claims, but Deputy Commissioner has .
rightly come to the conclusion that monthly amount, if any, received by the petitioner is required to be added to her family income. In the inquiry conducted by three revenue officials as named herein above, they have specifically concluded that annual income of the petitioner is Rs.
1,52,200/- from all sources, this definitely makes her ineligible to the selection because her income is above the prescribed limited.
10. Deputy Commissioner while ascertaining the second fact with regard to the application having been given by the late husband of the petitioner has recorded in his order that though petitioner's husband in the year, 2003 had applied in the Panchayat for recording the factum with regard to separation of the family, but change came to be effected in the year, 2006. He has specifically stated that reason for delay cannot be arrived at without there being detailed inquiry and as such, he has directed the Block Development Officer to conduct a detailed inquiry that why there was an inordinate delay in implementing the request made by the petitioner's husband, within two months. No doubt, there has been an inordinate delay in effecting the entry pursuant to request made by the late husband of the petitioner, but fact remains that at the time of the interview, petitioner was living in joint family and her annual ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP 8 income was Rs. 1,52,200/- from all sources, which definitely makes her ineligible to the selection because her income is above the prescribed .
limit.
11. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner below, which is strictly in conformity with order/judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7066 of 2012-G. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
2nd January, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit
r Judge
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:06 :::HCHP