Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 291 (HP)

Asha Devi v. State of H. P.

2016-03-18

P.S.RANA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
ORDER P. S. Rana, J. (Oral) Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with prayer to quash and set-aside the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur (H.P.) in Case No. S-02/2015 titled Anita Devi versus Asha Devi and Others relating to post of Anganwari Worker. Brief facts of the case: 2. On dated 13.08.2010 scheme for selection of Anganwari Workers/Helpers was notified by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide No.SJ&E-A(1)/2010. On dated 03.09.2013 vide No.SJE-A(F)(1)3/2011 Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to modify para 4(d) of scheme. On dated 13.03.2015 interview for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Sungal was held in which petitioner along with other private non-petitioners participated and petitioner was selected. On dated 27.03.2015 non-petitioner No.4 namely Anita Devi assailed the selection of petitioner to the post of Anganwari Worker before learned Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur (H.P.) on the ground that income certificate dated 28.05.2014 issued by learned Tehsildar is not correct and annual income of family of petitioner is more than mentioned in the income certificate. Income certificate dated 28.05.2014 was referred to Tehsildar Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. vide office letter No.BLS.Court Case-2/15-21 for verification of income of petitioner. Learned Tehsildar vide office letter No.BLS.Peshi. Reader. Tehsil.Sadar/2015-571 submitted the verification report wherein income certificate dated 28.05.2014 was verified as correct and annual income of petitioner was assessed below Rs.15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands) per annum. On dated 18.02.2016 appeal preferred by non-petitioner No. 4 Anita Devi was allowed by learned Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur (H.P.) and appointment of Asha Devi as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Sungal was set-aside on the ground that income of petitioner exceeds Rs.20000/- (Rupee twenty thousands) per annum. 3. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner at length and we have also perused the record annexed with the petition carefully. 4. Learned Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur (H.P.) has specifically mentioned in positive manner in the order dated 18.02.2016 that Asha Devi has received honorarium to the tune of Rs.36,900/- (Rupees thirty six thousands nine hundred). Smt. Asha Devi earlier was also appointed as Anganwari Worker. As per modified scheme No. SJE-A(F)(1)3/2011 dated 03.09.2013 honorarium paid as Anganwari Helper would not be considered family income in case Anganwari Helper applies for the post of Anganwari Worker. There are two posts in Anganwari Centre. (i) Anganwari Worker (ii) Anganwari Helper. Smt. Asha Devi earlier was also appointed as Anganwari Worker. As per modified scheme No. SJE-A(F)(1)3/2011 dated 03.09.2013 honorarium paid as Anganwari Helper would not be considered family income in case Anganwari Helper applies for the post of Anganwari Worker. There are two posts in Anganwari Centre. (i) Anganwari Worker (ii) Anganwari Helper. As per scheme exemption is granted to Anganwari Helper only and exemption of honorarium is not granted to Anganwari Worker. Smt. Asha Devi was not appointed as Anganwari Helper earlier but was appointed as Anganwari worker earlier. As per modified scheme cited supra exemption of honorarium is not granted to Anganwari worker. 5. We are of the opinion that scheme relating to appointment of Anganwari Worker is relating to poor persons whose annual income did not exceed Rs.15000/- (Rupee fifteen thousands) per annum and is not relating to persons who are rich persons and whose income is above Rs.15000/- (Rupee fifteen thousands) per annum. 6. Even there is recital in the order of learned Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur that husband of Asha Devi owns Dhaba at Sungal and he has himself admitted his income as Rs.100000/- (one lac) annually as per affidavit given by him before Licencing Authority. Licence of husband of Asha Devi was renewed w.e.f. 08.08.2012 to 08.08.2017. 7. In view of the above stated facts we are of the opinion that complicated facts of income are involved in the present case. We are of the opinion that complicated facts of income cannot be disposed of in writ petition. Matter in dispute is complicated matter of facts inter se parties and it was held in case reported in 2015(4) SCC 204 titled Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Dev. Corpn. & Others that disputed question of fact should not be decided in writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 8. We are of the opinion that present writ petition is full of complicated disputed facts. Factual complicated dispute inter se parties cannot be decided in present writ petition. It is open to the petitioner to approach civil Court if petitioner so desire under Section 34 Chapter VI of Specific Relief Act 1963. 9. In view of our findings above civil writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.