Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 5 (GUJ)

PRAVEENBEN SHABBIRBHAI VORA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-01-08

MOHINDER PAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs: (a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to start making the regular payment to the petitioner in accordance with her appointment letter dated 15.10.2003; (b) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate writ, order or direction direct the respondents to make the payment of the arrears from the month of December, 2004 onwards; (c) This Hon'ble Court further pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant all other and further service benefits to the petitioner as are available to the petitioner under the ICDS Scheme; 2. It is the case of the petitioner from the beginning that she was appointed as Anganwadi worker vide order dated 15.10.2003 by the competent authority under the ICDS Scheme. After appointment, the petitioner discharged her duties as Anganwadi worker on regular pay-scale. However, to utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, respondents – authorities stopped paying monthly remuneration to the petitioner from the month of December, 2004 without being given any notice or intimation in this regard. The petitioner made oral representation, but no response was given, hence, on 10.7.2005, the petitioner made a written representation to respondent no. 4 for the release of payment. It is further the case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner namely Usmangani R. Vora, was working as Senior Clerk with the District Development Officer, who was served with chargesheet with several allegations including the allegation regarding illegal appointment of the petitioner. In the departmental inquiry conducting against the father of the petitioner, he was exonerated from the charge of helping the petitioner in getting appointment. Since the father of the petitioner has been found not guilty regarding charge of illegal appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. 3. In reply, respondents have controverted the contentions of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was never appointed as Anganwadi Worker by the respondents. She was never paid any remuneration for such work and the appointment letter as well as other documents are fake, and as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. 3. In reply, respondents have controverted the contentions of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was never appointed as Anganwadi Worker by the respondents. She was never paid any remuneration for such work and the appointment letter as well as other documents are fake, and as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were specific allegations against the father of the petitioner to the effect that he has fabricated the record in order to show the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. He has referred to the inquiry report, according to which, the allegation regarding illegal appointment of the petitioner has been decided in favour of the father of the petitioner. Once the father of the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges in helping the petitioner for getting the appointment, the respondents are required to issue regular appointment order as well as release the remuneration to the petitioner. All these arguments have been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent while referring to the reply placed on record. 5. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. There is not dispute to the fact that the father of the petitioner was working as Head Clerk in the office of CDPO in ICDS Scheme. There were serious allegations against the father of the petitioner having helped his daughter in getting appointment by fabricating the record. Though father of the petitioner has been exonerated from such charge, however, respondents by way of their reply as said in many words that order dated 20.10.2003 annexed at page no. 16, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming appointment, is never issued by the office of CDPO, ICDS, Unit No. 1 of Anand Taluka Panchayat. The stand of the respondents in their affidavit is reproduced as under: “2. The respondent no. 4 most respectfully states that the petitioner herein is never appointed by the respondent no. 4 at any point of time by way of issuing any appointment order and as such the order dated 15.10.2003 and 20.10.2003 annexed as Annexure-A to memo of petition collectively are fabricated. The respondent no. 4 submits that as per the Rules framed for appointment of Anganwadi Worker on honorary basis, the competent authority is District Development Officer after a Committee consisting of Senior Officer takes a decision. The respondent no. 4 submits that as per the Rules framed for appointment of Anganwadi Worker on honorary basis, the competent authority is District Development Officer after a Committee consisting of Senior Officer takes a decision. It is stated that in the instant case, no procedure including advertisement in the newspaper for appointment of Anganwadi Workers on honorary basis for a particular Anganwadi for which village was never published. It is further stated that the name of the present petitioner was never selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Anganwadi Worker and thereafter there was no decision of District Development Officer, Anand District Panchayat for appointment and as per the record and there was no appointment order ever issued in favour of the present petitioner by the Programme Officer as well as the respondent no. 4. At the cost of repeatation, it is stated that the order dated 20.10.2003 annexed on page-16 was not at all issued by the then CDPO, ICDS Unit-1 of Anand Taluka Panchayat.” 6. The appointment in question has been denied and strongly disputed by the respondents. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to produce better record to show the appointment and other evidence regarding payment of wages etc. Since nothing has been produced by the petitioner and the fact that serious allegations were raised against the father of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the present petition is required to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Otherwise also, the disputed appointment pertains to the year 2003, and thereafter number of employees have been selected by the respondents as period of 13-14 years have gone and the petitioner might be over-age by now. 7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.