Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirmala Dwivedi vs Collector Satna on 23 August, 2012
W.P.No.16231/2005
23.08.2012
None for the petitioner.
Ms. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondents.
It is seen from the return filed by the respondents that the allegations specifically made duly supported by documents have not been suitably replied and a totally incorrect statement is made that the petitioner has not worked as Anganwadi Sahayika. There are documentary evidence available on record to indicate that she was allowed to work, but was not being paid the honorarium for which the instructions were issued by the Project Officer for making claim of such payments. Even when such documents were produced by the petitioner, instead of filing a parawise reply, a vague and frivolous statement is made in the return by the Officer Incharge that the petitioner has not worked. Such a conduct of the Officer Incharge cannot be approved.
Let a proper return explaining each and every document referred by the petitioner in the petition be filed within three weeks, failing which strict action will be taken against the Officer Incharge of the case.
List immediately after three weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge.
A.Praj.