Bombay High Court
Smt. Anvita D/O. Biharilal ... vs State Of Maha., Through Its ... on 4 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp5920.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5920 OF 2015.
PETITIONERS : 1.Smt. Anvita d/o Biharilal Shrivastav,
ig Aged about 47 years, Occupation - Service,
resident of Flat No. 508, Ratan Apartment
No.4, Near Agyaramdevi Mandir, S.T. Bus
Stand Road, Nagpur.
2.Smt. Anita w/o Laxmanrao Bhuswalkar,
Aged Major, Occupation - Service, resident
of Sai Nagar, Marartola, Gondia, Tahsil
Gondiya, District Nagpur.
3.Smt. Ranjana w/o Mohansingh Gour,
Aged Major, Occupation - Service, resident
of Near Gayatri Mandir, Band Colony,
Risama, Tahsim Amgaon, District Gondiya.
4.Smt. Anjali w/o Govindrao Pawankar,
Aged Major, resident of Plot no.4,
Ayoddhya Nagar, New Subhedar Layout,
Nagpur.
5.Smt. Lalita w/o Bajirao Shahare, Aged
Major, Occupation - Service, resident of
Ambedkar Chowk, at Post Deori, Tahsil
Deori, District Gondiya.
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:37 :::
Judgment wp5920.15
2
RESPONDENTS : 1.State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2.State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Woman and Child Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3.Zilla Parishad, Gondiya, through Chief
Executive Officer, Gondiya.
-----------------------
Smt. Neeta Jog with Ms. A.S. Deshpande, Advocates
for the petitioners.
Shri N.S. Rao, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri A. Parihar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
-----------------------
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P.Dharmadhikari, J).
Heard Smt. N. Jog with Ms. A.S. Deshpande, learned
Counsel for the petitioners, Shri N.S. Rao, learned A.G.P. for
respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A. Parihar, learned Counsel for
respondent no.3. This Court while issuing notice in the matter on
26.10.2015 passed the following order.
Judgment wp5920.15
" Heard.
The petitioners were regularly
appointed on the post of Anganwadi
Supervisors, under the Integrated Child
Development Scheme. The petitioners were
permitted to hold the additional charge of the
posts of Child Development Project Officers.
In the year 2013, 449 posts of Child
Development Project Officers were transferred
to the Department of the State for Women
and Child Development. By the Government
Resolution dated 28th May 2015, by way of a
stop-gap arrangement, the vacant posts of
Child Development Project Officers are sought
to be filled, on ad-hoc basis, in the manner
provided in the said Resolution. According to
the petitioners, the Anganwadi Supervisors
could be required to hold the charge of Child
Development Project Officers in pursuance of
the said Resolution. It is stated that if the
temporary charge of the posts of Child
Development Project Officers could be given
to the Anganwadi Supervisors like the
petitioners, there is no reason as to why the
impugned order dated 7.10.2015, the
Judgment wp5920.15
petitioners are asked to hand over the
additional charge of the posts of Child
Development Project Officer, to the Assistant
Block Development Officers.
We, prima facie, find that the
petitioners do not have a right to continue to
hold the additional charge of the
promotional posts. However, since by a stop-
gap arrangement, similarly situated persons
like the petitioners, could be asked to hold
the additional charge of the posts of Child
Development Project Officers, in the manner
prescribed by the Government Resolution
dated 28.5.2015, we, prima facie, do not
find any propriety in the direction issued by
the respondent- Zilla Parishad to the
petitioners to hand over the charge of the
said posts to the other officers mentioned in
the impugned order.
Issue notice of final disposal to
the respondents, returnable after four weeks.
The learned Assistant Government
Pleader Shri D.M. Kale, waives notice on
behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The impugned order is stayed till
the returnable date."
Judgment wp5920.15
2. Parties have thus addressed us in this backdrop. With
their consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule
making the same returnable forthwith.
3.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, there
is no application of mind to the factors which are taken note of in
order dated 26.10.2015, or then to the fact that Officers like Block
Development Officer or Assistant Block Development Officer do not
have time to discharge additional work. The said fact is accepted by
the Government itself and a circular has been issued by it on
28.03.2011. Because of that circular, the charge of vacant post of
Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) has been kept with the
petitioners.
4. Shri Parihar, learned Counsel and Shri Rao, learned
A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents rely upon the reply-
affidavit. They point out that post of CDPO is a Gazetted Post
carrying with it responsibilities not only of maintaining
Judgment wp5920.15
administration, but, to function as drawing and disbursing authority.
The petitioners who are Anganwadi Supervisors do not possess said
capacity, and that has been objected to even by the Finance
Department. They invite attention to the Government Resolution
dated 28.05.2015 to show that there after taking note of all these
difficulties, it has been specified that charge of vacant post of CDPO
should be additionally given to the Assistant Block Development
Officer in the same Taluka or to the CDPO of the adjacent taluka.
They submit that keeping of charge with Anganwadi Supervisor is
the last contingency which can be taken recourse to, if the first two
options are not available.
5. With the assistance of respective learned Counsel we have
examined records.
6. In Writ Petition there is challenge to order dated
07.10.2015, whereby additional charge given to the petitioners is
sought to be withdrawn. The charge is being entrusted to Assistant
Block Development Officers.
7. We find that the respondents have not pointed out that
the petitioners lack either experience or then educational
Judgment wp5920.15
qualification and therefore, were not working as CDPO properly.
Similarly the earlier circular dated 28.03.2011, wherein the practice
of handing over additional charge to Block Development Officer has
been deprecated, also does not find any consideration.
8. The record show that about 449 posts of CDPO are
transferred to Child and Women Development Department as per
Government Resolution dated 28.05.2013 from the Rural
Development Department. Recruitment or promotion to said posts
is bound to take some time. Therefore, the adhoc measures were
being looked into, and vide Government Resolution dated
28.05.2015 an alternate arrangement has been worked out. The said
arrangement or government resolution does not state that
Anganwadi Supervisors are incompetent, and therefore, additional
charge should not be entrusted to them. On the contrary, it
mentions that considering their experience and educational
qualifications, additional charge can be entrusted to Anganwadi
Supervisors, but, as a last option.
9. If Block Development Officers or Assistant Block
Development Officers are not in a position to spare time to attend to
Judgment wp5920.15
additional charge and if the work entrusted to them under Child and
Women Development Department remained neglected, the State
Government has to find out whether competent Anganwadi
supervisors are available to whom that charge can be entrusted.
10. In present matter, while entrusting the charge of post of
CDPO or then while removing it, no such exercise appears to have
been undertaken by the Zilla Parishad. In this situation, in the
interest of welfare activity of Child and Women Development
Department itself, we find it appropriate to direct the respondent
no.3 Zilla Parishad to undertake that exercise and to complete it
within a period of eight weeks from today. The interim order
granted by this Court on 26.10.2015 to continue till then, and shall
be subject to it.
11. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. Rule
is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
