Smt. Sangeeta Devi vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6285 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 192 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Sangeeta Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas & Pushtahar Lko & Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

C.M. Application No.55313 of 2021

1. This application seeks condonation delay of 43 days in filing the special appeal.

2. Heard and gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application.

3. Reasons shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay.

4. The application is allowed. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned.

On Memo

1. This intra-Court special appeal under Chapter-V, Rule-5 of the High Court Rules has been filed, impugning the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32017 (S/S) of 2017 instituted by the petitioner, appellant herein, against the order dated 3rd September, 2014 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar, Government of U.P., Lucknow, dispensing with the services of the appellant on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri.

2. The post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri for the Gram Panchayat Rajepur, Dhawan, District Ambedkar Nagar was advertised in the year 2002-03. The government laid down the eligibility condition/criteria and selection process for the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri vide Government Order dated 16th December, 2003. Clause-3 of the aforesaid government order provides the order of preference for selection to be made on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri. According to the said government order, the preference shall be given in the following order:-

a. A Widowed lady of the village, who possesses requisite/eligibility qualification;

b. In absence of widowed lady, a divorcee woman of the same village;

c. In absence of widowed and divorcee woman, woman of the same village, living below the poverty line; Such woman is required to submit income certificate to be issued by the concerned Tehsildar;

d. If a candidate, from the category a, b and c is not available only then a woman of the village, having income of above the poverty line, shall be considered to be eligible for selection on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri.

3. The appellant obtained an income certificate from the Tehsildar, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar to the effect that the family of the appellant was having income below the poverty line. The appellant applied for the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri in category-c of the order of preference as provided by the government order dated 16th December, 2003 (supra).

4. The appellant was selected on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri and appointment letter was issued to her on 8th April, 2005. She joined her services on 11th April, 2005.

5. A complaint by one Mr. Deepraj was made to the District Magistrate, alleging therein that the income certificate submitted by the appellant was incorrect and, she obtained the income certificate on the basis of incorrect particulars. On the complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar, Akbarpur. A notice was issued to the appellant by the Tehsildar, asking her response regarding the complaint in respect of the income certificate submitted by her.

6. The appellant appeared before the Tehsildar and, her statement was recorded on 12th July, 2013 in which she admitted that her husband was getting an honorarium of Rs.2,980/- per month in January, 2003 and, he was still employed and getting honorarium at a high rate on the post and telegraph department. On this admitted fact, the Tehsildar came to the conclusion that the certificate of income issued to the appellant, determining the family income to be less than Rs.24,000/- per year was incorrect. Vide order dated 28th February, 2014, the income certificate issued to the appellant, on the basis of which she was selected and appointed on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri, was cancelled.

7. Earlier, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 3142 (M/B) of 2014 before this Court being aggrieved by the cancellation of her income certificate, which was issued to her on 18th January, 2003 by the Tehsildar, certifying that the income of family of the appellant was less than 24,000/- per month, vide order dated 28th February, 2014, after conducting an inquiry. The appellant could become eligible only on the basis of this certificate in the c-category of woman of the village, living below the poverty line, for selection and appointment as Aanganbadi Karyakatri.

8. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16th April, 2014 dismissed the writ petition and, held that the reasons given by the Tehsildar in his order dated 28th February, 2014, cancelling the income certificate issued to the appellant on 18th January, 2003, could not be said to be incorrect in any manner. However, the Division Bench protected the appellant to the extent that the benefits drawn by her from the employment as Aanganbadi Karyakatri should not be withdrawn from her and no further action, including any criminal action, to be initiated against her and her husband. This judgment and order dated 16th April, 2014 has attained finality. Thus, the issue regarding the validity of income certificate dated 18th January, 2003 issued to the appellant, showing her family income less than Rs.24,000/- per year, which stood cancelled vide order dated 28th February, 2014, is no longer res integra.

9. Thereafter, order dated 3rd September, 2014, which was impugned in the Writ Petition No.32017 (S/S) of 2017, was issued, dispensing with the services of the appellant on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before the order dated 3rd September, 2014 was passed. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant cannot be put to disadvantage of wrong income certificate issued to her inasmuch as in December, 2002, when she applied for income certificate, she had disclosed all the facts. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant had put in more than nine years of service and, on the basis of a complaint, lodged in the year 2014, her services came to be dispensed with. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration these facts and misconstrued the judgment and order dated 16th April,2014 passed in Writ Petition No.3142 (M/B) of 2015.

11. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and perused the record.

12. The appellant applied in the category of 'woman, living below the poverty line' and, she obtained an income certificate, showing income of her family to be less than Rs.24,000/- per year. On a complaint, an inquiry was instituted regarding the validity of the income certificate issued to her and, she was given full opportunity in the inquiry conducted by Tehsildar. On admitted facts, the family income of the appellant was found to be more than 24,000/- and, the income certificate dated 18th January, 2003 was cancelled vide order dated 28th February, 2014. The validity of this order dated 28th February, 2014 has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16th April, 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3142 (M/B) of 2014, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of which, are extracted herein below:-

"7. It is not denied that the petitioner's husband was getting honorarium at Rs.2888/- in January, 2003 and that he is still employed and getting honorarium at a higher rate from the Post and Telegraph Department. On this admitted fact, the reasons given by the Tehsildar cannot be put to any fault. The petitioner's family was living above poverty line in January, 2003, and thus the certificate issued to her determining the family income to be less than Rs.24,000/- was not correct. She has now served for about ten years on the basis of her selection.

8. The writ petition is dismissed.

9. Before parting with the matter we may observe here that the enquiry officer may not have taken into consideration the increased honorarium paid to the petitioner's husband but that the petitioner cannot be put to blame in filling up the application form for issuing the income certificate. She had disclosed the primary facts as they were available to her in December, 2002 when she applied. In the circumstances, we are of the view that now since the appointment given to her may be cancelled, the benefits drawn by her from such employment may not be withdrawn from her and that no further action including any criminal action may be initiated against her or her husband."

13. Once the income certificate, which was the basis of selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganbadi Karykatri, has been found to be incorrect and, got cancelled, there is no requirement of giving her further opportunity of hearing before passing the consequential order dated 3rd September, 2014, dispensing with her services.The Division Bench, being aware of this fact, protected the appellant from realization of the honorarium drawn by her on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakatri and, she and her husband were also protected from any criminal action. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order dated 3rd September, 2014 was passed, has no force inasmuch as the order dated 3rd September, 2014 is a consequential order, and a natural corollary of the cancellation of the income certificate dated 18th January, 2003, issued to the appellant, on the basis of which she was selected and appointed as Aanganbadi Karyakatri. We, therefore, find no force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant inasmuch as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error.

14. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal, but no order as to costs.

[D.K. Singh, J.] [R.R. Awasthi, J.]

Order Date :- 16.6.2021

MVS/-