Smt. Biasa Devi vs State of HP and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Chhiachhi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. on 2.8.2007. The selection of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Additional District Magistrate, Solan in Appeal No. 95/08 of 2007. The Additional District Magistrate, Solan vide order dated 18.6.2009 set aside the appointment of the petitioner. The CDPO Nalagarh was directed to take further necessary action in the matter as per the guidelines of Scheme and instructions of the Government. According to the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, the income of the petitioner, as per the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, from all sources is Rs. 2,53,600/- per annum. Thus, the income of the petitioner was more than the income prescribed under the Scheme. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.6.2009 before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, transferred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, on 21.12.2009. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, passed the impugned order, dated 21.1.2012, after getting report from the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar. According to the report furnished by the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, the income of the petitioner is Rs. 35,800/- per month. In view of this, the appeal of respondent No.4 was accepted and the appointment of the petitioner was quashed. The CDPO Nalagarh was directed to take necessary steps to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and appoint other eligible candidate for the post of Anganwari Worker. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.1.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan before this Court. This Court on 20.3.2012 impleaded the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar as respondent No.5. On 3.5.2012, he was directed to conduct an inquiry qua the dispute of the income of the petitioner during the period, preceding one year of her selection as Anganwari worker, in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also respondent No.4 and submit a report to this Court on his own affidavit. The Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, i.e., respondent No.5 has filed a detailed affidavit at page No. 37 of the paper-book. According to him, the income of the petitioner from all sources was Rs. 2,46,600/-. The copy of the report of the Naib Tehsildar was also furnished to the parties. However, the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar has also calculated the income of respondent No.4. According to him, the income of respondent No.4 was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, (Rs.3333/- per month from all sources, viz. Agriculture & cloth sewing). Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate, has strenuously argued that the order dated 21.1.2012 and the report of the Naib Tehsildar Ramshahar are against the facts. According to him, the income of the petitioner is Rs. 9,000/- per annum as per Annexure P-4 and not Rs.2,46,600/- as verified by the Naib Tehsildar Ramshahar.

Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the order dated 21.1.2012 and the report placed on record by the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar.

Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has argued that the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar was not directed by this Court to verify the income of his client, i.e., respondent No.4 and thus, the report cannot be taken into consideration qua his client.

Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate, has submitted that the appeal was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, on the ground of limitation. However, we have gone through the order dated 18.6.2009, which shows that the appeal has not been dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, has passed a very detailed order and has sought the report from the revenue agencies. The revenue agencies have calculated the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 2,53,600/- per annum. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan, on remand of the case by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, has also got the income of the petitioner re-assessed. The income of the petitioner has been found beyond the prescribed income. However, in order to give quietus to the dispute as to whether the income of the petitioner was more than the income prescribed under the Scheme, the Court directed the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar to inquire into the matter and file a detailed report in this regard. He has given a very detailed report. He has taken into consideration the income of the petitioner from transport Rs. 2,20,400/-, from honorarium Rs. 14,400/-, from widow pension Rs.1800/- and from agriculture Rs. 10,000/-, which comes to Rs. 2,46,600/- per annum. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Surinder Kumar, in his statement dated 8.5.2012 has admitted that he has purchased a truck in the year 2007. According to him, EMI is Rs. 19,500/-. He has stated that he along with his mother owns 19-9 Bighas of land and annual income from this land is Rs.10,000/-. He has admitted that his mother is getting widow pension at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. Smt. Ram Pyari, mother-in-law of the petitioner, has also admitted that she is getting widow pension of Rs. 1800/-, per annum. His son has purchased a truck on loan in the year 2007 and EMI is Rs. 19500/-. In view of this, since the husband of the petitioner owns owns 19-9 Bighas of land along with his mother and annual income from this land is Rs.10,000/ and that he has purchased a truck in the year 2007 and EMI is Rs. 19,500/-, income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and the certificate that she belongs to an IRDP family are illegal. The person whose annual income is about Rs. 2,46,600/- cannot be placed in an IRDP family. The competent authority while issuing IRDP certificate and income certificate has committed a grave illegality. It ought to have taken into consideration the income of the petitioner''s family from all sources. The income and IRDP certificates are not issued merely on asking and there has to be a proper verification of all movable and immovable properties of the person concerned and the record whereof is also required to be maintained. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, dated 21.1.2012. The Naib Tehsildar has taken the income of the petitioner from all sources including income from transport, honorarium, widow pension and agriculture. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. Though, this Court has not directed the Naib Tehsildar Ramshahar to look into the income aspect of respondent No.4, yet he has undertaken this exercise. According to the report furnished by the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, the income of respondent No.4 is also 40,000/- per annum, which is more than permissible income, prescribed under the Scheme. While determining the income of respondent No.4, the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar has recorded the statements of respondent No.4 and others. Respondent No.4, Parwati Devi, has admitted that her father-in-law owns about 15 bighas of land. Her husband is a Tailor by profession, whose monthly income is Rs.1000/-. Madan Lal, husband of respondent No.4, while appearing before the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, has stated that his father owns 15 bighas of land and the income from agricultural land is Rs. 3500/- per annum. His total annual income from all sources is Rs. 15,500/-. This income is also beyond the prescribed income under the Scheme. The father-in-law of the petitioner has stated that his son is a Tailor and he has given 3-10 bighas of land to his son for cultivation. To the similar effect is the statements of Lekh Ram, Surinder Pal, Gauri Dutt, Hari Ram, Ram Kishan Nand Lal, Dharam Pal, Sohan Lal and Ishwar Dass. It is true that this Court has only directed the Naib Tehsildar Ramshahar to re-verify the income of the petitioner, but while doing so, he has also re-assessed the income of respondent No.4. We have to accept the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar in totality and the fact that the income of respondent No. 4 is more than the income prescribed under the Scheme cannot be overlooked. We are of the view that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 is eligible since their annual income is more than the prescribed income under the Scheme, for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker.

Accordingly, in view of analysis and discussions made here-in-above, writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 21.1.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan is upheld and the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar is accepted. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to re-do the selection process for filling-up the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Chhiachhi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and complete the same within a period of three months from today. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.