Allahabad High Court
Smt. Samtosh Kumari vs Director Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar ... on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 649 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Samtosh Kumari
Respondent :- Director Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar U.P. Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of termination from service dated 17.12.2014, passed by the Joint Development Project Officer, Faizabad whereby it has been stated that the petitioner at the time of initial appointment on 14.07.2006, was less then 21 years of age and hence she would not have been given appointment and consequently her appointment has been cancelled and her services have been terminated.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that she was appointed on the post of Angan Wadi Karyakarti by the Joint Development Project Officer, Faizabad on 14.07.2006 and since then she had been paid honorarium and has continuously worked on the said post. It is stated that in 2012, the respondents stopped paying honorarium to the petitioner due to which petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 807 of 2013, which was disposed of by means of order dated 14.02.2013, directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work till inquiry is completed after verifying the documents furnished by the petitioner. After the aforesaid order the petitioner was permitted to work.
4. It is submitted that only ground of terminating the services of the petitioner is that she was about six months short of minimum age on her date of appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner had continuously worked for eight years and after such a long length of time she cannot be terminated in the manner in which it has been done by the respondents, though she is only a contractual employee and as such the rules are not applicable to her and there is no impediment in case petition is being allowed to continue to work. Copy of judgment dated 07.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 103 (S/S) of 2015 - Chandra Gupta Maurya Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy. (Basic Edu.) UP Sectt. Lko and Others, where in similar circumstances services of an employee were terminated due to the fact that at the time of appointment he was short by four months, the Court allowed the writ petition considering the fact that the petitioner worked for 14 years. The relevant portion of order is quoted is quoted herein below :-
"Considering the fact that the petitioner continued as Shiksha Mitra for almost 13/14 years, this by itself should not have been a ground for terminating his service, as, at best the petitioner could have been treated as having been appointed on the date he attained the minimum age required, but, there can be no cancellation of such appointment after 14 years.
In view of the aforesaid the impugned order of cancellation of appointment/termination of service is quashed. The petitioner shall be treated in service as Shiksha Mitra from the date of passing of the impugned order but without arrears for the period he has not worked. If any remuneration for the period he has not worked has not been given then the same shall be released. The petitioner shall be treated as appointed from the date he attained the age of majority for the purpose of grant of service and other benefits but there shall be no recovery for the amount of salary already paid since actual appointment.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms."
6. Considering the fact that in the present case petitioner's age is short by six months and also considering that she has worked for eight years as Anganwadi Karyakarti, there cannot be order of cancellation of her appointment after such a long length of time.
7. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination dated 17.12.2014, passed by the Joint Development Project Officer, Faizabad, is hereby quashed.
8. The petitioner shall be considered to have been appointed on the date she attained majority and after grant of service benefits, she shall be permitted to join and work on the said post and her salary be paid month by month as the same falls due.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022/A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
