Rimjhim Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5114 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19847 of 2015
     ======================================================

Rimjhim Devi Wife of Rakesh Kumar Giri, Resident of Village - Chatiya, Tola Mathiya, P.O. - Chatiya, P.S. - Malahi, Block - Areraj, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Deputy Director, Welfare Tirhut Commissionary, Muzaffarpur.

3. The Collector, Motihari, East Champaran.

4. The District Programme Officer, Motihari, East Champaran.

5. The Child Development Project Officer, Areraj, East Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. Hoda Khan, Sc18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-10-2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed

seeking the following reliefs:-

""(i) For that the order dated 23.7.2015 passed in Service Appeal Case No.124/13-14 by the Deputy Director, Welfare Tirhut Commissionary Muzaffarpur may be quashed because by which and whereunder Misc. Case No.68/13-14 dated 4.10.13 passed by District Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari was confirmed.

(ii) For that the concerning Patna High Court CWJC No.19847 of 2015 dt.06-10-2023

respondents may be directed to make joining of the petitioner on the post of Sevika at Anganwari Centre No.85 under Gram Panchayat Chatiya Chintamanpur Village- Chatiya Tola Mathiya, Block-Areraj within the District-East Champaran."

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.19847 of 2015 dt.06-10-2023

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 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.19847 of 2015 dt.06-10-2023

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

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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19847 of 2015 dt.06-10-2023

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

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) kanchan/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          07.10.2023
Transmission Date       NA