Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 679 (HP)

Rekha Rani v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-10-04

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 9.12.2011 whereby the learned Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala has come to the conclusion that the income of the family of the petitioner Rekha Rani was much more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Bani, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra on 14.08.2007. As per the guidelines only a person income of whose family is less than Rs.12,000/- per annum could be appointed for the said post. The petitioner had placed on record a certificate showing her family income to be Rs.8000/- per annum. 3. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.4 Rajni Bala before the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala who came to the conclusion that the income of the family of Rekha Rani was more than Rs.26,000/- per annum and set aside the appointment of the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the ADM, Kangra. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was heard with many other matters and the matter remanded with a direction that the Tehsildar should reassess the income. 4. On reassessment, the income of the family of the petitioner was again found to be Rs.27,000/- per annum. It would be pertinent to mention here that after the present petition was filed this Court directed the Tehsildar Nurpur to hold fresh inquiry and now the Tehsildar has filed his report in which it is stated that the family income of the petitioner was Rs.4,000/- per month. We may make it clear that we are not taking into consideration this report because the said report has only been issued after orders were passed without even hearing the respondent. According to the petitioner her husband does not even have a driving license but according to the statement of Rakesh Mahajan, recorded by the Tehsildar, Balbir Chand, husband of the petitioner, was employed with him as a driver at a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month and daily allowance of Rs.50/- per day i.e. Rs.4,000/- per month. It is true that Shri Rakesh Mahajan has also stated that Balbir Chand, ceased to be in employment after 28.12.2005 but no opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine Sh. Rakesh Mahajan. It is true that Shri Rakesh Mahajan has also stated that Balbir Chand, ceased to be in employment after 28.12.2005 but no opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine Sh. Rakesh Mahajan. No record was produced by Sh. Rakesh Mahajan with regard to disengagement of Sh. Balbir Chand, husband of the petitioner. It cannot be expected that a driver, who was earning Rs.4000/-per month would suddenly become totally jobless and not even earn a penny. It is more than apparent that the husband of the petitioner is working as a driver of a tractor/road-roller and this is the statement of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat of the area in question. 5. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the family income of the petitioner was much more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. This was a pure finding of fact given by the authorities below. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.