Sujata Kumari vs State Of Bihar

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"a. To quash and set aside the appellate authority's order dated 3 March 2022 (Annexure P/6) passed in Service (Anganwari) Appeal No. 31 of 2020 (Sujata Kumari Versus The State of Bihar and others) by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea-respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by this petitioner was rejected.

b. To quash and set aside the original order dated 31 January 2022 (Memo No.155) (Annexure P/4) passed by the District Program Officer, Araria i.e. respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was disengaged/removed as Anganwari Sewika for Centre No. 19175 of Gram Panchayat Raj Halhaliya, Block Forbeasganj, District Araria on account of the fact that during inspection the Center was found closed.

C. To consequently direct the respondents to pay to this petitioner all the benefits including arrears of honorarium thereof as well as restoration of her status as Anganwari Sewika of the Centre in question."

At this juncture, this Court would refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

“7. Having considered the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The charges against the appellant were very clear as would be apparent from the show cause dated 22.02.2012, which was issued in light of the findings in the enquiry report as well as the relevant documents/registers which were required to be maintained at the Centre. Reply given by the appellant, copy of which has been brought on record, does not indicate any justification and rather it has been stated that on 24.09.2011 at the time of Inspection, the children were still coming and on 07.10.2011, she herself had gone to call the children and during that time the inspection was held. It was further stated by the appellant that on 30.09.2011 she had become ill due to being drenched by rain. We find that such explanation is vague and evasive and does not inspire confidence. The spirit and object of running Anganbadi Centres cannot be overemphasized and the purpose is to ensure the welfare of children from the lowermost and deprived strata of society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as well as the procedure adopted by them prior to passing such order.

For the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.”

It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20, paragraphs no. 4 and 5 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

“4. In our considered view, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India. Considering the very nature of engagement which provides of honorarium, we are of the view that in case the appellant still feels aggrieved, she may approach the Civil Court for damages. There is nothing at stake in such a scheme other than honorarium. For such contractual engagements the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate and even if there is breach of the scheme or any other principle of law, the claim should ordinarily be permitted, if found good on merits, only for damages.

The appeal is dismissed.”

Considering the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court, as aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.