Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neelam Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Bal ... on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30634 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Pariyojna Lucknowandors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Pradhan,Abhilasha Pandey,Brijesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel representing the respondent nos.1 to 5.
(2) It is the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Anganbari Karyakatri against the temporary arrangement which has been arising out of termination of the earlier incumbent-Respondent no.6-Smt. Geeta Sharma in the instant petition. The termination of the services with regard to the Respondent no.6 has already been challenged by way of filing the Writ Petition No.9977 (S/S) of 2018 [Smt. Neelam Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others] and the same has been finally allowed by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2017 through which she has been reinstated in the same service on the same post.
(3) Due to compliance of the order and direction passed by this Court the services of the petitioner have been disengaged. It is not controverted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner rendered the services in the Department more than seven years and as such, on the basis of the satisfactory services rendered by the petitioner she has been assured that she will be accommodated over the same capacity and post elsewhere in the Department.
(4) For the well accommodation of the petitioner, the District Programme Officer, has recommended before the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar, wherein the adjustment and accommodation of the petitioner was recommended on the same remuneration. The recommendation dated 17.03.2018 has already been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
(5) As per the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is trying for pillar to post for early adjustment for the same post but inspite of recommendation letter dated 17.03.2018 nothing has been done by the concerned Department so far.
(6) Having been aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondent-Department, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the Writ Petition No.9977 (S/S) of 2018 wherein a direction has been given by this Court for filing a comprehensive representation regarding her grievance before the Respondent no.3-District Magistrate, District Rae Bareli, in respect of her adjustment in nearby village on the post of Anganbari Karyakatri and the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before the Respondent no.3.
(7) In compliance of the order and direction passed by this Court vide judgment dated 09.04.2018 the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, decided the representation vide order dated 24.09.2018 through which he has explained the certain problems for non-adjustment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Karyakatri within the District Rae Bareli.
(8) In the latest event, it has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 24.09.2018 sought by the petitioner that after a gap of more than four years, ample posts are available of Anganbari Karyakatri but the claim of the petitioner is still pending before the competent authority whereas the same was denied only on the ground of the non-availability of the vacancy of Anganbari Karyakatri in the year 2018.
(9) There is a force in the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till today nothing has been done by the respondent-authority that for actual compliance of the order and direction passed by this Court in the earlier adjudication of the Writ Petition Writ Petition No.9977 (S/S) of 2018 and the petitioner has been out of engagement for a long time.
(10) Although the petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 24.09.2018 but the same is unwarranted if the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed only by way of engaging her on the post of Anganbari Karyakatri over the vacancy if arise during 2018 till today.
(11) This petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Respondent no.3-District Magistrate, District Rae Bareli, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, since the matter of the engagement of the petitioner has strongly recommended by the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 17.03.2018, expeditiously say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
N.PAL
