Patna High Court
Shushila Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 24 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22552 of 2014
======================================================
Shushila Devi Wife of Digamber Sah. Resident of village - Chandpur, P.S.-
Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
3. The District Magistrate/Collector, Bhagalpur.
4. The Child Development Programme Officer, Kahalgaon.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gopal Prasad Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Jai Shankar Barnwal, GA-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-08-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed
seeking the following relief:-
"1. That this is an application for
issuance of an appropriate Writ/
order/direction, commanding the
respondents to restore the services
of petitioner as Angan Bari Sevika
at Child Development Programme,
Kahalgaon after setting aside the
order dated 14.12.96 by which she
has been terminated from the
Office and also to pay her
remuneration for the year 1994 to
1996 which has been withheld by
the authorities without any rhyme
Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2014 dt.24-08-2023
and reason."
2. At this juncture, this Court would refer to
a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The
State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016
SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8
whereof are reproduced herein below:-
"7. Having considered the rival
contentions, we do not find any merit
in the present appeal. The charges
against the appellant were very clear
as would be apparent from the show
cause dated 22.02.2012, which was
issued in light of the findings in the
enquiry report as well as the relevant
documents/registers which were
required to be maintained at the
Centre. Reply given by the appellant,
copy of which has been brought on
record, does not indicate any
justification and rather it has been
stated that on 24.09.2011 at the time
of Inspection, the children were still
coming and on 07.10.2011, she
herself had gone to call the children
and during that time the inspection
Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2014 dt.24-08-2023
was held. It was further stated by the
appellant that on 30.09.2011 she had
become ill due to being drenched by
rain. We find that such explanation is
vague and evasive and does not
inspire confidence. The spirit and
object of running Anganbadi Centres
cannot be overemphasized and the
purpose is to ensure the welfare of
children from the lowermost and
deprived strata of society. Any lapse
in execution of the said scheme has
to be taken very seriously. Closure of
even one day entails the beneficiaries
going without their meals, which
cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do
not find any infirmity in the decision
of the authorities cancelling her
selection as well as the procedure
adopted by them prior to passing
such order.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the
Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed."
3. It would be apt to refer to yet another
judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Neetu Kumari v. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2014 dt.24-08-2023
State of Bihar and others, reported in 2011 (4)
PLJR 20, paragraphs no. 4 and 5 whereof are
reproduced herein below:-
"4. In our considered view, the post of
Anganbari Sevika is not a post having
security of tenure or protection under
Article 311 of Constitution of India.
Considering the very nature of
engagement which provides of
honorarium, we are of the view that in
case the appellant still feels
aggrieved, she may approach the
Civil Court for damages. There is
nothing at stake in such a scheme
other than honorarium. For such
contractual engagements the relief of
reinstatement is not appropriate and
even if there is breach of the scheme
or any other principle of law, the claim
should ordinarily be permitted, if
found good on merits, only for
damages.
5. The appeal is dismissed."
4. Considering the law laid down by the
learned Division Bench of this Court, as aforesaid,
the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to
press the present writ petition, however, seeks
Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2014 dt.24-08-2023
liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such
other alternative remedies as are otherwise
available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is
granted.
5. The writ petition stands dismissed as not
pressed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.08.2023
Transmission Date N/A
