Nago Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:-

i) Issue the writ of Mandamus to the effect for directing the respondents to release the salary for the months of March, April, May, June, July 2010 and allow the petitioner to continue discharge her duties.

ii) issue the writ of certiorari to quash the Annexure P-3 dated 23/3/2010.

Annexure P-3 is the resolution passed by Village Education Committee, GPS Thalpa which reads as under:-

Today on 23/3/2010 the meeting of VEC was held in GPS Thalpa in the Chairmanship of Sh. Jagat Singh Chairman in continuation of the earlier meeting held on 6/3/2010 and all the members participated. It was deliberated that the instructions issued by the Government vide which in schools where the student strength is less than 25 only one Mid Day Meal worker will be retained and at present two Mid Day Meal Workers are in the School. The resolution to the effect that Smt. Maya Devi w/o Sh. Ramesh Chand who has been appointed by the committee vide resolution dated 11/2/2005 and her name has been placed at serial no.1 and name of Smt. Nago Devi w/o Sh. Bhagat Singh at serial no.2 as such the services of Smt. Nago Devi are dispensed with. The resolution is read over to all the members and nothing has been concealed.

Record reveals that both, petitioner and private respondent were selected by the Committee on 11.2.2010. Private-respondent Smt. Maya Devi is shown at Sr. No.1 and petitioner Smt. Nago Devi is shown at Sr. No.2.

It is urged by the petitioner that she joined on 11.2.2005, whereas private-respondent Smt. Maya Devi joined on 2.3.2005, which fact is seriously disputed by private-respondent as also by the State. The Village Education Committee, who selected the candidates and accepted the joining, is not a party in these proceedings. Be that as it may be, records as placed before the Court reveals that alongwith the petitioner, private-respondent Smt. Maya Devi did receive her first salary in the month of February, 2005. The amount received for the said month was equally apportioned between the two i.e. petitioner and private-respondent. However, subsequently, State did not approve the appointment of these two persons as Mid Day Meal workers, for the reason that strength of the students in the school was less than 20 and only one person could have been appointed. Consequently, impugned resolution was passed.

There is no doubt that Government has issued commutation dated 29.4.2010 clarifying that principle of last come first go needs to be adopted, but in the instant case, I find that this principle is inapplicable. Firstly, Smt. Maya Devi is shown at Sr. No.1 in the resolution (annexure P-1). Secondly, monetary compensation for the month of February, 2005 was apportioned equally by both these persons. Thirdly, Smt. Maya Devi is elder in age to petitioner Smt. Nago Devi. Consequently, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.