Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Devkanya Songara vs Women And Child Development Department on 5 March, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 365 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. DEVKANYA SONGARA W/O RAMGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ANGANWADI WORKER 57/26 NEHRU MARG NEAR
RAJWADA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. NIRMALA W/O YAKUB DAMORE, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AANGANWADI
KARYAKARTA 21 CHURCH COLONY WARD NO. 15
DIST JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. SANNU W/O RAKESH, AGED ABOUT 44
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AANGANWADI
KARYAKARTA GRAM BHAMRADA POST
KALYANPURA TEHSIL AND DIST JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI RISHI SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS) .
AND
1. WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTOR COLLECTOR KARYALAYA JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. ANITA S/O RAMRATAN BHARGAV, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AANGANWADI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 06-03-2024
18:33:04
2
KARYAKARTA GRAM KALYANPURA TEHSIL AND
DIST JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. VEENA W/O ARVIND DAMOR, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AANGANWADI
KARYAKARTA GRAM AND POST KERDAWAD
BADI TEHSIL AND DIST JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
Further heard on I.A. No. 1775/2024, an application seeking condonation
of delay.
In this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 appellant assails the
order dated 24.05.2023 passed in W.P. No. 21618/2019 whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants herein are aanganwadi
workers working in their respective aanganwaadi centers since the last more
than 20 years. In the year 2007, the State Government had issued a circular
where a complete scheme for the purpose of running aanganwadi centres has
been prescribed, but the said scheme does not encompasses grant of regular
pay scale or regularization of service of aanganwadi workers. Appellants are
getting salaries from the State Government and therefore they have been in
continuous employment of the State. Therefore, they come within the definition
of "Public Servant" as prescribed under the M.P. Civil Services Classification
and Appeal, Rules. Appellants have filed a writ petition on the ground that
scheme dated 10.07.2007 governs the service conditions of the appellant, but
the said scheme does not provide for regularization of the services of appellant.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appellants
have filed the present intra Court appeal.
3. Learned counsel while addressing this Court on I.A. No 1775/2024
contended that appellants belong to rural areas and residing in remote villages.
They were informed about dismissal of writ petition in December, 2023 and
thereafter were advised to file the present appeal against the impugned order
and, therefore, the appeal could be filed in the month of January, 2024. Hence,
delay of 78 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant while adverting to the merits of the
case contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact
that anganwadi workers are engaged in the services in compliance of the scheme
issued by the State Government. Learned Single Judge has further failed to
consider the fact that appellants are working and getting salary from the State
Government since more than 20 years, therefore, their case is fit to be
considered in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1]. Learned Single
Judge has further erred in not considering that the appointment and termination
of aanganwadi workers is governed by the scheme dated 10.07.2007. However,
the scheme is silent in respect of regularization of the aanganwadi workers.
Learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since it
is a policy matter, the same has to be considered by the State Government.
Hence, the present writ appeal may be allowed and appellants be regularized in
the services.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly passed
the impugned order dismissing the petition by holding that the circular is issued
by the State Government which governs the entire service conditions.
Therefore, it is a policy matter and should be taken up by the State Government
to provide any other service condition admissible to them. Hence, the present
writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. This Court first proceeds to take up I.A. No. 1775/2024, an
application for condonation of delay. On perusal of the application, the reasons
assigned for delayed filing of the appeal appears to be bonafide and is therefore
condoned.
8. It is not disputed that the service conditions of appellants are
governed by the circular dated 10.07.2007 which is in existence. The said
circular provides fixed honorarium to the appellants. Since a fixed honorarium
is being paid, therefore, appellants are not entitled to get any kind of regular pay
scale which is applicable to the regular government employees. So far as the
contention of appellants that they are working since last more than 20 years and
therefore, they are entitled for regularization is concerned, it has to be clarified
that merely because a temporary employee or a casual worker is continued for a
time beyond the term of his/her appointment, he/she would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such
continuance. The Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not
ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization or permanent
continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the
constitutional scheme. Hence, learned Single Judge has not committed any error
while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
9. Normally, temporary employees when they approach the Court
sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its
instrumentalities to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to
continue. A mandamus may be issued to compel the authorities to do
something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the
authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to
enforce it. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in not issuing
writ of mandamus, in as much as, that the appellants were not able to show that
they have any enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the
State has a legal duty to make them permanent as per the circular dated
10.07.2007.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, learned Single Judge has not
committed any error warranting interference by this Court.
11. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
