Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sheetla Devi vs Secretary Language Social Justice And on 9 October, 2017
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. : 2966 of 2011.
.
Decided on: 09.10.2017.
Sheetla Devi ....Petitioner.
Versus
Secretary Language Social Justice and
Empowerment, Shimla and others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner : Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. AG and
Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Kush
Verma, Dy. AGs for respondents
No.1 to 4.
: Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate for
respondent No. 5.
: Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI with
Ms. Sukarma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 6.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia challenged order dated 08.04.2011, passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, in Case No. G-9/10, in an appeal before the said authority filed under Clause 12 of the Scheme/Guidelines made for the engagement of ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 17:56:42 :::HCHP Anganwari Workers/Helpers, vide which learned Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, while allowing the appeal has set .
aside the appointment of the present petitioner as Anganwari Helper, at Anganwari Centre, Dugli, on the ground that family of the petitioner was not separate on the prescribed date i.e. 01.01.2004 and accordingly income of the petitioner, computed on the basis of her being a separate family, could not be treated as valid for the purpose of her being considered for appointment as Anganwari Helper.
2. Though in the petition, the petitioner has challenged the income criteria, as is contemplated in the scheme/guidelines supra, however, faced with the situation that the petitioner herself had participated in the selection process without any protest, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only to this ground that the order passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, was not sustainable in law, as the said authority erred in not appreciating that the application for separation of the family stood filed on behalf of family of the present petitioner much before the cut of date i.e. 01.01.2014 as is envisaged in the Scheme.
::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 17:56:42 :::HCHP3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the records of the case.
.
4. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of computing income of a candidate, the status of the family is to be seen as it exists on 01.01.2004. In the present case, the petitioner stood appointed by the authorities concerned by taking into consideration the income certificate submitted by her, based upon the status of her family as it stood after being separated, as per the provisions of The Panchayati Raj Act, post 01.01.2004. The factum of status of family of the petitioner not being so reflected in the 'Parivar Register' as maintained by Gram Panchayat concerned as on 01.01.2004, on the strength of which status, the petitioner obtained the income certificate, which was made the basis of appointment of the petitioner, could not be disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, his argument was that as the family of the petitioner had applied for separation much before 01.01.2004 and it was the Panchayat, which did not do the needful before 01.01.2004, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on that account.
5. Alongwith supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 10.05.2011, she has placed on record an ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 17:56:42 :::HCHP affidavit of her husband dated 16.10.2003, which is to the effect that husband of the petitioner had separated from the .
family of his parents since 20.09.2003 and was living separately. Annexure P-8 appended with the supplementary affidavit is a letter dated 25.07.2004, addressed by Block Development Officer, Development Block, Ghumarwin to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin, containing therein recommendations that the family of the applicant i.e. Kishori Lal, husband of the present petitioner be separated. This certificate appended with this supplementary affidavit itself demonstrates that as on 01.01.2004, the family of the petitioner was not separate from the family of parents of her husband. Said separation took place only after 01.01.2004. In fact, the family of the petitioner was separated from the family of parents of her husband on 24.07.2004. It is not in dispute that father of husband of the petitioner was a retired government employee, getting family pension @ Rs. 2700 per month and the income of the parents of husband of the petitioner including the pensionary income of father of husband of the petitioner, was not taken into consideration when income certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner.
It is also not in dispute that the pension which the father-in-
::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 17:56:42 :::HCHPlaw of the petitioner was getting, when taken into consideration, resulted in the family income of the petitioner .
being in excess of the prescribed minimum limit, rendering the petitioner ineligible for appointment as Anganwari Helper.
6. No other point was urged.
In view of above discussion, as we do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay
Karol)
Acting Chief
Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
October 09, 2017
(narender)
::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 17:56:42 :::HCHP