Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sushila Devi Sharma vs State Gov Of Raj And Ors on 8 November, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1627 / 2016
Sushila Devi Sharma W/o Shri Damodar Sharma, Aged About 52
Years, Village Dhahariya Tehsil Nadoti Distt. Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Government of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development,
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Child Development Project Officer, Department of Women and
Child Development, Nadoti, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
3. Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development,
Karauli, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nadoti, District Karauli,
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 469 / 2017 Smt Sushila Devi Sharma W/o Shri Damodar Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Dahariya Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli Rajasthan
----Petitioner Versus
1. Shri Govind Sahai Meena, Child Development & Project Officer, Women, & Child Development Department Govt. of Rajasthan Nadoti District Karauli Rajasthan
2. Mrs. Sunita Sharma Director, Women & Child Development Department Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr.S.C.Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr.B.K.Sharma, Additional Govt.Counsel. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Order (2 of 5) [ SAW-1627/2016] 08/11/2017 Instant special appeal is directed against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.30.11.2016.
The facts, in nutshell, relevant for the present purpose are that an application was submitted by the appellant-petitioner seeking employment as Anganwari Worker in the Village Jirana to the concerned authority and indisputably without any mode of selection & opportunity to the eligible incumbents who are similarly situated and as mandated by Art.14 of the Constitution on the very request made, the appellant was appointed as Anganwari Worker vide order dt.09.08.1983 (Annex.R/2) and was paid honorarium which was revised by the State Government from time to time and at the time when the order dispensing with her services came to be passed dt.26.09.2014, she rendered 31 years of service and the authority in its order dt.26.09.2014 observed that before the decision being taken for dispensing with of her services, inspection took place on six different occasions of the center where she was posted i.e. on 29.04.2014, 19.05.2014, 23.06.2014, 24.07.2014, 01.09.2014 & 23.09.2014 and it revealed that she was not following the basic norms and maintaining the records and so also the other instructions to be followed as directed by the State Government from time to time for running the center.
In addition to it, it was also observed that the appellant- petitioner has become old and it may not be possible for her to continue and further there is a complaint by the local residents (3 of 5) [ SAW-1627/2016] which certainly has impaired her efficiency and the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Nadauti vide letter dt.22.09.2014 informed for improvement of her performance of work which she has not carried out, in the given facts & circumstances, a decision was taken for dispensing with her services as Anganwari Worker vide order dt.26.09.2014, which was the subject matter of challenge by filing of the writ petition and because of the interim order passed by the ld.Single Judge of this court, she practically was allowed to continue till disposal of the writ petition.
Reply to the petition came to be filed by the respondents opposing the writ petition and on the basis of the pleadings which came on record, the ld.Single Judge was of the view that the appellant was not holding any civil post and her service conditions are not regulated by any of the statutory Rules having no right to the post and at this stage if decision has been taken for dispensing with her services assigning cogent reasons, there appears no reason to interfere in the decision making process while passing of the order dt.26.09.2014 and that apart the order impugned is self speaking indicating that on different occasions random inspections of the center was carried out she neither maintained the record nor regulated the center as per the directions of the State Government and there was a complaint of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Nadauti and in totality of the matter a decision was taken by the authority for dispensing with her services vide order dt.26.09.2014.
(4 of 5) [ SAW-1627/2016] It was not the case of the appellant even before the ld.Single Judge of this court that the procedure prescribed & recognized by the law has not been followed by the respondents while passing the order impugned and at the same time, the only submission made by counsel for the appellant was that the reason assigned in the order of termination/dispensation of service are not germane and could have been made a basis after opportunity of hearing being afforded to her and being an arbitrary exercise of power, the action of the authority in dispensing with her service vide order dt.26.09.2014 is not legally sustainable in law.
The ld.Single Judge considered the submissions made at length and repelled his contentions & in addition to it, we also find no substance in either of the submissions made by appellant's counsel for the reason that in the absence of any right to the post being conferred, it is not mandated by law that before passing of the order, opportunity of hearing is to be afforded as a matter of course. At the same time, the order impugned dt.26.09.2014 indicates a reasonable justification while passing the order impugned and taking note thereof, no adverse inference can be drawn of the action being arbitrarily or abuse of discretion vested with the authority.
We are further of the view that when the appellant was not holding a civil post, certainly has no right to claim lien to the post of Anganwari Worker held by her and for the period she served, honorarium has been paid and these are the schemes run by the State Government in fulfillment of its social obligation and persons (5 of 5) [ SAW-1627/2016] engaged are paid honorarium and we find no error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents in taking decision of dispensing with her services vide order dt.26.09.2014.
After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error in the order impugned which may call for our interference.
Consequently, the instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Since we have dismissed the appeal, the Contempt Petition No.469/2017 is accordingly dismissed.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. Solanki DS, PS/6-7