Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 165 (HP)

Punra Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-03-06

DEEPAK GUPTA, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Per Deepak Gupta, J 1. The petitioner is working as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre, Chori. According to the petitioner a post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Hardeeppur has fallen vacant and her prayer is that she should be appointed to the said post as per the communication dated 10.5.2012. That communication is not strictly applicable in the case of the petitioner since that relates to those cases where post of Anganwari Worker falls vacant in the same Centre where the Anganwari Helper is working. This, however, does indicate that the income derived as Anganwari Helper cannot be used to oust the candidate when the other family income is below 15,000/- per annum. Otherwise it will lead to a situation where no Anganwari Helper can ever be appointed as Anganwari Worker. This obviously cannot be the intention of the framers of the Scheme. 2. Any Court while interpreting the Scheme must give an interpretation which is purposive i.e. meets the purpose of the scheme and furthermore, the intention of the framers must be given effect to. As per the Scheme, those candidates whose income does not exceed 15,000/- per annum cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker and Anganwari Helper. If the interpretation, which is canvassed by the State, is accepted then every Anganwari Helper who gets an honorarium of Rs.1800/- per month would not be eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. This would result into a very anomalous situation where these ladies who may have worked for years as Anganwari Helper, gained experience of working with the children would become ineligible for a higher post in the very scheme in which they are working. True, it may be that the posts have to be filled in directly, but if we look at the entire scheme in a holistic manner it is obvious that the intention of the State while framing the scheme was that that the poorest of poor should get employment under the scheme. This interpretation, however, does not mean that a person who is working as Anganwari Helper should for all times only work as Anganwari Helper and cannot even apply for the post of Anganwari Worker in any other Anganwari Centre. This interpretation, however, does not mean that a person who is working as Anganwari Helper should for all times only work as Anganwari Helper and cannot even apply for the post of Anganwari Worker in any other Anganwari Centre. If the interpretation canvassed by the State is accepted then only the inexperienced can be appointed to the higher post and not those who have gained experience at the lower post of Anganwari Helper. 3. If the interpretation, which we intend to give, is accepted then the Anganwari Helper who has gained experience can apply for being appointed as Anganwari Worker and then also one other person can be accommodated as Anganwari Helper in the place which she vacates. Therefore, the same number of people will get employment and the avenues of employment to the general public will not be diminished in any manner. Most importantly, the persons who have gained valuable experience working as Anganwari Helper will not be ousted for being considered against the post of Anganwari Worker. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the remuneration/honorarium being earned by an Anganwari Helper cannot be taken into consideration while determining the cut off income if the said candidate applies for the post of Anganwari Worker. 4. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in case the petitioner applies for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Hardeeppur or any other Anganwari Centre then the honorarium which is being paid to her shall not be taken into consideration while determining her income as per Clause 4 of the Scheme. We make it clear that this judgment has only been given in the context of persons working as Anganwari Helpers and we have considered the same only to this limited extent and this judgment will not apply in other cases where employees are given honorarium for other posts such as Part Time Water Carrier etc. because they work in different departments or under different schemes and the entire reasoning for passing the judgment in hand is that the experience which is gained for the purpose of a specific scheme should not be a bar to obtain appointment at a higher level under the same Scheme. because they work in different departments or under different schemes and the entire reasoning for passing the judgment in hand is that the experience which is gained for the purpose of a specific scheme should not be a bar to obtain appointment at a higher level under the same Scheme. We also make it clear that while deciding this case we have not gone into the question whether the income criteria as laid down by the State is a validly laid down criteria and that question is open to be decided in other petitions wherein it is under challenge.