Smt. Dhan Kunwar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1582 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 21.04.2022
 
Delivered on 27.04.2022
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57673 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Dhan Kunwar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Gautam,Anita Singh,Harish Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Petitioner, by means of present writ petition, has sought following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.8.2015 passed by respondent no. 6.

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent concerned not to interfere in the peaceful discharge of duty on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, Anganwari Centre in Village Majhalwara, District Mahoba and any honorarium month to month as when its false due, within stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) to award the cost of petition."

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was engaged on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri at Anganwadi Centre in Village Majhalwara, District Mahoba and joined the post on 06.02.1991. According to petitioner she worked sincerely and discharged her duties with all devotion. According to the averments made in writ petition an inspection was conducted of the Anganwadi Centre where petitioner was working wherein not only petitioner was found absent but the Anganwadi Centre was also found to be closed and vide order dated 12.06.2014 the honorarium of petitioner for the month of June, 2014 was withheld till further orders.

3. Petitioner submitted an application dated 13.06.2014 and contended that she was present at the Anganwadi Centre from 8.15 AM to 12.00 Noon on the date of inspection and it was also alleged that on the said date no inspection was conducted. A certificate of Village Praghan was also placed on record that petitioner was working at the New Anganwadi Centre on the date of inspection.

4. Petitioner thereafter also submitted an application on 14.06.2014 alongwith certificate of Village Pradhan. Meanwhile, respondent-District Programme Officer, Mahoba vide order dated 17.10.2014 communicated petitioner that her future honorariums were stopped as petitioner was found absent on inspection and also taking note that earlier absence of petitioner was ignored, still petitioner failed to improve her conduct. Petitioner was required to file reply within three days. Petitioner has also submitted a complaint before Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission, which directed the District Programme Officer to conduct inquiry in the issue. Therefore, an inquiry was conducted and Chief Development Officer, Mahoba vide letter dated 06.12.2014 communicated the District Magistrate, Mahoba that petitioner frequently remained absent at the Anganwadi Centre and despite earlier many warnings, petitioner remained habitual absentee and failed to discharge her duties diligently, therefore, it was stated that no interference is required in the order.

5. The District Programme Officer, Mahoba on 09.02.2015 again issued a show cause notice on the basis of report that on inspection petitioner was found absent at the Anganwadi Centre as well as the food material was also found short and an explanation was sought from petitioner within a week. Petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice. The Chief Development Project Officer, Mahoba after considering the reply of petitioner disengaged the petitioner vide order dated 10.08.2015, who was engaged on the basis of a contract. In the said order the authority concerned after considering the material on record come to conclusion that petitioner neither stayed in the village concerned nor regularly conducted the centre, there was misuse of nutrient food as well as despite repeated warning the conduct of petitioner was not improved and on contrary she tried to pressurize the officers by submitting false applications. The aforesaid order is impugned in the present writ petition.

6. Sri Harish Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner was working since 1991 and discharged her duties with due diligence and there was no complaint. However, with a mala fide intention after one and half decade the respondents initiated inquiry against petitioner and without considering the reply as well as certificate given by Gram Pradhan concluded against the petitioner that she was a habitual absentee. Learned counsel also submitted that in pursuance of application dated 16.10.2014 no inquiry was conducted rather only on the basis of documents inquiry report was submitted. Entire procedure against petitioner was conducted at her back without even giving proper notice and without considering the reply so filed.

7. Per contra, Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II, appearing for State-Respondents, submits that petitioner was found absent on various inspection, however, she was left with the warning to improve herself but she miserably failed and again on inspection she was found absent. Even the nutrient food was found short. Petitioner was failed to undertake her duties diligently and, therefore, petitioner who was engaged on a contract and honorarium basis, her engagement was discontinued. The allegation of mala fide are without any basis and there is no material on record to substantiate the same. Petitioner has not denied that she was normally residing at village or brought on record any document that the allegations made against her were false and incorrect. So far as contention of petitioner that on the date of inspection she was at another Anganwadi Centre is also false as on the basis of record it is evident that the new Anganwadi Centre was already completed before March, 2015. Even though the contention of petitioner is considered to be true, the Anganwadi Centre which is required to be opened from 8.00 AM to 1.00 PM, she left at about 12.00 Noon, therefore, the averments of petitioner in the writ petition as well as the submission of counsel for petitioner are not based on record. Leaned Chief Standing Counsel-II also pointed out some documents in order to support his submission that on the one hand petitioner was found absent on repeated inspections and on the other hand she used to write letters to authorities making false allegations.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The concept of Anganwadi Centre was given more importance under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) 2005 and later on the Government committed to repositioning the Anganwadi Centres as a "Vibrant Early Childhood Development (ECD) Centre" to become the first village outpost for health, nutrition and early learning. The main role and responsibilities of Anganwadi Workers are, to carry out a quick survey of all the families, especially mothers and children in those families in their respective area of work once in a year; to organise supplementary nutrition feeding for children (0-6 years) and expectant and nursing mothers by planing the menu based on locally available food and local recipes; to provide health and nutrition education and counselling on breastfeeding / infant and young feeding practices to mothers and Anganwadi workers being close to the local community, to motivate married women to adopt family planning/ birth control measures; to make home visits for educating parents to enable mothers to plan an effective role in the child's growth and development with special emphasis on new born child; and, to identify the disability among children during her home visits and refer the case immediately to the nearest Primary Heath Cntre and District Disability Rehabilitation Centre. In a recent judgment dated 25.04.2022 Supreme Court in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs District Development Officer, Dahod and others (Civil Appeal No. 3153 of 2022) has narrated the duties and responsibilities of Anganwadi Workers and directed that they are entitled for gratuity.

10. In the present case, petitioner though working as Anganwadi Karyakatri since 1991 appears to be failed to discharge her duties at the later part of her engagement. On various inspection she was found absent from Anganwadi Centre. Even the nutrient food was found to be short. Respondents have given repeated warning to petitioner to improve her conduct and to become regular and diligent towards her work and duties, however, petitioner failed to improve herself and on inspection she was repeatedly found absent at the Anganwadi Centre.

11. Petitioner has failed to brought on record any document to contradict the factual aspect of inquiry as well as inspection report. The conduct of petitioner is also adverse to the prayers made in this writ petition as on the one hand she failed to improve herself and remained absent at the Anganwadi Centre and on the other hand she was kept herself busy in writing letters to different authorities without any substantive reasons. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the inquiry report. The petitioner not only failed to discharge her duties as Anganwadi Karyakatri but she was also failed to even provide requisite nutrient food to the children and lactating women. Thus, the petitioner, who was engaged on contract basis, has failed to comply the conditions of her contract, therefore, there is no error in the impugned order, whereby petitioner was disengaged and her contract was terminated.

12. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :-27.04.2022

AK