Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 948 (HP)

Veena Devi v. State of H. P.

2019-07-12

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The petitioner, is, aggrieved by the order, embodied in Annexure P-7, wherethrough, the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., hence, upheld the cancellation, vis-a-vis, the income certificate, reflecting, the, family income, of, the husband of respondent No.5 herein to be Rs.40,000/-, hence, by the Tehsildar concerned, (I) and, also upheld the income certificate No.1405, dated 14.5.2007, showing the family income, of, respondent No.5, as Rs.8000/-, and, thereafter recorded a pronouncement, that, with the respondent No.5 herein, obtaining highest marks, in the merit list, as a corollary thereof, he made a direction, for respondent No.5 herein being issued, the, employment letter, for, the post of Aganwari Helper, at Aganwari Centre Parnali. 2. The gravamen, of, the onslaught, as, cast, by the petitioner herein, vis-a-vis, the afore order(s) is entirely rested, upon, an argument qua the income, if any, derived by the husband of respondent No.5 herein, from, his rendering services, as, a Home Guard volunteer, and, embodied, in the income certificate, to be borne, in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (a) being includable, for the relevant purpose, more so, for determining, the, eligibility of respondent No.5 herein. 3. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.5, has, countered the afore submission, and, the edifice of his afore submission is rested, (a) upon, the further factum, vis-a-vis, the allowances, and, honorarium, disbursable to the husband of the respondent No.5 herein rather suffering fluctuations, and, volatility, hence at certain stages, of, rendition of services, by the husband, of, the respondent No.5 herein, as, a Home Guard Volunteer, (b) and, hence, his being not reimbursed, any honorarium, and, allowances, and, thereupon, for ensuring qua the respondent No.5's family hence earning, a, decent livelihood, rather it would be unbefitting, to, compute income, if any, derived by her husband, by his rendering volunteer services, in, the Home Guard Department. The efficacy of the afore submission, is, effaced, by this Court, in a verdict rendered in a case titled as Reena Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 1778 of 2015-H, decided on 30.10.2015, rather, declaring that with the petitioner's husband's, discharging hence duties, as, Home Guard volunteer, and, his receiving daily allowances, in the nature of honorarium, rather rendering his allowances being includable, for, determining, the, income eligibility criteria, of, the aspirant concerned. Furthermore, the afore verdict, is also, in concurrence with the apt verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Principal Division Bench, of this Court, in a case titled, as, Smt. Reena Devi vs. State of H.P., LPA No. 12 of 2016, decided on 1st August, 2016, the relevant paragraph No.4 whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- "4. The apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12858 2009) Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Asso. Versus State of H.P. and Ors., has held that home guards be paid allowances as well as salary equal to 30 days as is being paid to the police personnel in the State. It is apt to reproduce para 22 of the said judgment herein. "22. In view of the discussion made above, no relief can be granted to the appellants either regularization of services or grant of regular appointments hence no interference is called for against the judgments passed by the Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Delhi High Courts. However, taking into consideration the fact that Home Guards are used during the emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel, we are of the view that the State Government should pay them the duty allowance at such rates, total of which 30 days (a month) comes to minimum of the pay to which the police personnel of State are entitled. It is expected that the State Governments shall pass appropriate orders in terms of aforesaid observation on an early date preferably within three months."" also postulate qua it being incumbent, upon, the employer, to pay allowances as well salary, equal to 30 days, as is being paid, to the police personnel in the State, rather also vis-a-vis, rendition of services, by a Home Guard, (i) thereupon, the afore submission, that there are fluctuations, and, volatility(ies), in the income, derived by the husband of respondent No.5 herein, by his rendering services, as a volunteer, as, a Home Guard, hence, for the respondent No.5, earning a decent livelihood, rather, his afore income being discountable, and, also being inconsequential, for, determining, the, relevant income criteria, obviously stands rendered wholly benumbed. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and, the order impugned before this Court, and, borne in Annexure P-7 is set aside. All pending applications also stands disposed of.