Sushma Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9650 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.306 of 2018

.

                                              Decided on: 22nd November, 2022





      Sushma Devi                                                 ... Petitioner





                                       Versus

      State of Himachal Pradesh & others                     ... Respondents





    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

_____________________________________________________

For the petitioner : M/s Surender Thakur and Tejasvi Verma, Advocates.

For the respondents No.1 : Mr. Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and to 3 Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate

Generals.

For respondent No.4 : Mr. Nikhil Chugh, Advocate vice Mr.

Manoj Pathak, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge, (Oral)

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated

01.02.2018, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, in case No.

21/DC/AW/2016, titled as Smt. Guddi Devi vs. State of H.P.

and others, in terms whereof the appointment of the petitioner

against the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre,

Damohar, was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner in an

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

appeal filed by the private respondent herein under Clause 12 of

the Scheme/Guidelines for the post of Anganwari Worker under

.

ICDS Scheme/Programme.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and

gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended

therewith.

3. The ground on which the appointment of the

petitioner has been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner is

that the income of Khim Dass, who has been referred to be the

father-in-law of the petitioner herein by the Deputy

Commissioner, was not taken into consideration while assessing

the annual income of the family of the petitioner herein.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted

earlier that Shri Khim Dass was not the father-in-law of the

petitioner but he was the father of her father-in-law.

5. To ascertain this fact, the State was directed to

produce the relevant record.

6. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate

General has produced the record of the Parivar Registrar, which

was submitted by the petitioner at the time when she applied for

the post in issue. A perusal thereof demonstrates that the

following were the members of the family of the petitioner in

terms of the Parivar Registrar maintained by the Panchayat

concerned:

.

(a) Sh. Khim Dass, S/o Sh. Anup Ram,

(b) Smt. Heera Devi W/o Sh. Khim Dass,

(c) Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Khim Dass,

(d) Pushpa Devi W/o Sh. Rajender Kumar,

(e) Balbir Singh S/o Rajinder Singh,

(f) Sushma Devi W/o Balbir Singh and

(g) Aanya Thakur D/o of Balbir Singh.

7. Mr. Tejasvi Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner

has argued that Sh. Khim Dass, happens to be the father of

father-in-law of the petitioner and learned Deputy Commissioner

has erred in passing the impugned order by construing Sh.

Khim Dass to be the father-in-law of the petitioner. He submits

that this fact, in fact, demonstrates that there is perversity in the

impugned order and the present petition accordingly is liable to

be allowed on this count alone.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

argued that the family means in the case of an applicant

applying for post of Anganwari worker, the husband of the

applicant and her father-in-law but it does not includes the

father of father-in-law.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as

also learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and

.

learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the

considered view that there is merit in the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner as the impugned order passed

by learned Deputy Commissioner, has been passed by

construing Sh. Khim Dass, to be the father-in-law of the

petitioner and not the father of her father-in-law. At this stage,

learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that even if

Shri Khim Dass happens to be the father of father-in-law of the

petitioner, then also, as he was a member of the family at the

relevant time, therefore, his income has to be taken into

consideration while deciding as to whether the applicant was

falling within the parameters of the notification or not. With

regard to this contention so made by learned Additional Advocate

General all that this Court can observe is that it is for the

appellate authority to take a call on this count but as the

impugned order as it stands today has been passed by

construing Sh. Khim Dass to be the father-in-law of the

petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to remain on

record.

10. Accordingly, on this count alone, this petition

succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and

.

the matter is remanded back to learned Deputy Commissioner

with the direction that let the appeal filed by the private

respondent herein be decided afresh, after adhering to the

principles of natural justice, not later than 31st December, 2022.

It is made clear that the appeal shall be decided by the authority

on the basis of the pleadings which are already on record of file

and none of the parties shall be permitted to place on record any

fresh material. Parties through Counsel are directed to appear

before learned Deputy Commissioner on 2nd December, 2022.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so

also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

                                           (Ajay Mohan Goel),
22nd   November, 2022                             Judge.





        (narender)