Lata Kumari vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi allowing the appeal of Respondent No. 4 Bhagyawati.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 4 Smt. Bhagyawati was appointed as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Sai-Noduan, District Bilaspur. Lata Devi, the present Petitioner challenged her appointment basically on the ground that the income of Bhagyawati and her husband from all sources was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum.

It is not necessary to go into the other aspects of the matter but after the appointment of Bhagyawati was set-aside she approached this Court by filing a CWP No. 4186 of 2010 and a learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated 7.9.2010 directed the Divisional Commissioner to reconsider the case of Bhagyawati afresh after taking into consideration Annexure R-4/4 and R-4/5 filed in that petition and any other material which the parties wish to adduce before him for determination of their respective rights. Thus there was clear cut direction to the Commissioner to take into consideration those two documents and other material which the parties were to produce before him. A perusal of the order of the Commissioner shows that these two documents have not at all been considered by him. He, in fact, not only did not comply with the directions of this Court but violated the same in letter and spirit. He on is own accord without there being any direction in this behalf asked the Naib Tehsildar to give a report regarding the income of Bhagyawati and her husband. This was not a direction issued by this Court. The direction of this Court was clear that he was only to take into consideration the two documents and other evidence led by the parties. He had No. business to start collecting evidence for one party or the other by getting a report from the Revenue Officials.

Be that as it may, from the facts established on record it is apparent that till July 2007 a sum of Rs. 8,304/- per annum was being paid towards the Insurance premier of Lekh Raj husband of Smt. Bhagyawati. This is apparent from documents Annexure R-4/1 and Annexure R-4/2, which were documents Annexure R-4/4 & R-4/5 in the earlier writ petition. These documents show that from 2004 to 2007 a sum of Rs. 5496/- per annum was being paid as insurance premium of one policy and from the year 2005 another policy was taken wherein the premium was of Rs. 2908/- per annum. The explanation given on behalf of Bhagyawati is that this amount was being paid by her father. Such explanation cannot be accepted since in the policy the name of the insured is shown to be Lekh Raj. There is nothing to show that the said premium was being paid by the parents of Bhagyawati except the bald affidavit filed by her father.

Another relevant document which was on record of the Court below also is a certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Sikroha showing that Lekh Raj husband of Bhagyawati was engaged as Assistant Secretary and his honorarium was fixed at Rs. 500/- per month. The explanation given by Bhagyawati is that this amount was not paid to him. Along with her reply she has annexed a document R-4/3. This makes interesting reading, which shows that Lekh Raj S/o Jeet Ram i.e. husband of Bhagyawati after his appointment only worked till 19.07.2005 and thereafter did not come to perform his duties despite repeated requests. Therefore, the Panchayat passed a resolution that he will be removed from the post of Secretary and may not be paid wages w.e.f.19.7.2005. It is thus obvious that Lekh Raj voluntarily gave up this appointment of Assistant Secretary where he would have earned Rs. 500/- per month.

It is also admitted that Lekh Raj is doing the business of selling readymade garments in Namohal Bazar. According to the Petitioner he runs a shop whereas according to Smt. Bhagyawati her husband runs this business from a Khokha. Whatever be the situation, in today''s date and age it cannot be believed that total monthly income from such business would only Rs. 750/- per month. This it cast a doubt on the version put forth by Smt. Bhagyawati. I am constrained to observe that the Divisional Commissioner did not take into consideration the documents which he was directed to do so. He also did not take into consideration the documents which were already on the record of the case but took into consideration only the report of the Naib Tehsildar. The report of the Naib Tehsildar could not be made the sole basis of determining the income without taking into consideration the other documentary evidence on record.

I am of the considered view that the Petitioner has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the income of Bhagyawati and her husband in the year 2007 was much more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum and therefore, she was not eligible for being appointed as Anganwari Worker. Her appointment is accordingly set-aside and the post shall be filled in from the person next in the merit list. No. costs.