Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1662 (HP)

Jamuna Devi v. State of H. P.

2011-03-23

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. CMP No.558 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 4.1.2011 is recalled. The Writ Petition is restored to its original number and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard today itself. CWP No.6177 of 2010 This litigation has a long and chequered history. The petitioner in the first round filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P Administrative Tribunal. The case of the petitioner was that she had been working as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Samoh, Block Jhandutta, District Bilaspur w.e.f. 12.11.1997 to 25.7.2003. According to her, she proceeded on maternity leave w.e.f. 21.7.2003 to 9.8.2003. The case set up by her is that the Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Samoh got her signature on a blank paper by saying that he would write her application for grant of maternity leave but her signed blank paper was forged and instead of a letter for the grant of maternity leave, resignation letter was written on it. The order of the Tribunal has not been placed on record but it is stated that the petition was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.2674 of 2010 and it was ordered that the petitioner would be heard by the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, H.P who after hearing her passed a detailed order. He gave a finding of fact that the petitioner had in fact submitted a letter of resignation. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she never submitted the letter of resignation and the signed blank paper given by her to the Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Samoh was misused by him. It is interesting to note that neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, the said Up Pradhan was ever made a party. The version of the petitioner that she had applied for maternity leave does not appear to be correct because it is her own case that delivery took place in the month of November, 2003 but prior to that in September, 2003, she had gone to the Anganwari Centre to re-join her duties. Another aspect of the matter is that in September, the petitioner also got a legal notice. Before the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, H.P, the petitioner took a different stand. Another aspect of the matter is that in September, the petitioner also got a legal notice. Before the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, H.P, the petitioner took a different stand. According to her, she had come to know about the resignation only after the delivery took pace in November. As rightly held by the Director, this explanation is totally false in view of the letter and legal notice issued by her in September. This Court in writ proceedings cannot decide this highly disputed question of fact. The question as to whether the resignation letter was submitted by the petitioner or not is a pure question of fact which cannot be decided in the writ proceedings. Therefore, the petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.