Manju Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 15460 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                LPA-384-2018 (O&M)

Manju Devi                                                    ......Appellant(s)
                                      Versus

State of Haryana & others                                    ......Respondent(s)

(2)                                             LPA-1488-2016 (O&M)

Shiksha Rani                                                  ......Appellant(s)
                                      Versus

State of Haryana & others                                    ......Respondent(s)

(3)                                             LPA-466-2019 (O&M)

State of Haryana & others                                     ......Appellant(s)
                                      Versus

Bimla Devi & another                                         ......Respondent(s)

(4)                                             CWP-32277-2019

Rekha                                                           ......Petitioner
                                      Versus

State of Haryana & others                                    ......Respondent(s)

             Reserved on:    21.11.2022
             Pronounced on : 01.12.2022

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
        HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Present:-    Ms.Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate, for
             Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate
             for the appellant in LPA-384-2018.

             Mr.R.K.Selwan, Advocate, for
             Mr.Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate,
             for the appellant in LPA-1488-2016
             and for the respondents in LPA-466-2019.

             Mr.Randhir Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

           *****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

The issue in the present set of cases is whether an Anganwari

Worker is entitled to continue in service having been elected as a Sarpanch

or as a Member of the Municipal Committee. The Three learned Single 1 of 8

LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 2

Judges of this Court have taken the view that an Anganwari Worker is not

entitled to continue in service on account of having been elected and

therefore, held that the termination from the said post was justified

whereas one learned Single Judge has taken a contrary view.

The facts in brief in the cases are to the extent that in LPA-

1488-2016, challenge is to the order passed in CWP-12866-2016 titled

Shiksha Rani Vs. State of Haryana & others, decided on 28.07.2016

whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition wherein

challenge was raised to the order dated 16.06.2016 wherein services of the

writ petitioner were dispensed with by the District Programme Officer,

Women & Child Development Department, Yamuna Nagar on account of

the fact that show cause notice had been issued that the writ petitioner had

a choice as to which of the 2 posts is to be retained as she was elected to

the post of Sarpanch of Village Kalyanpur.

The defence of the State was that an Anganwari Worker has

to work from 8.45 AM to 2.45 PM and have to discharge their duties.

There were instructions dated 07.02.2012 of the Government of India that

elected Members of the Panchayat and local bodies would take them away

from the core activities and would affect the delivery of the services under

the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Similarly, the

Director, Women & Child Development Department, Haryana had also

issued instructions vide letter dated 31.03.2016, clarifying that Anganwari

Workers could contest elections but after elections they cannot work on 2

posts. It was accordingly justified that the show cause notice was issued

on 21.04.2016 giving an option to the writ petitioner as to which of the

services she would opt for. Another learned Single Judge has taken a

2 of 8

LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 3

similar view in CWP-6332-2016 titled Smt. Manoj Kumari Vs. State of

Haryana & others, decided on 12.07.2016.

In LPA-384-2018, similar view was taken by the learned

Single Judge in CWP-1566-2018 decided on 25.01.2018 while dismissing

the writ petition wherein challenge had been raised to the show cause

notice dated 14.03.2017 regarding the resignation as Anganwari Worker as

she was also elected as a Councillor of the elected Member of Municipal

Committee Mahendergarh and that her services had been terminated w.e.f.

07.07.2016 on account of holding 2 posts and her failure to appear before

the authorities. The directions dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) was also

subject matter of challenge that she had not given any response that she

had to resign from either of the 2 posts. The learned Single Judge relied

upon the earlier view which he had taken in Smt. Bali Devi Vs. State of

Haryana, 2014 (1) RCR (1) 1034 wherein he had dismissed the writ

petition whereby challenge was raised to the termination order of the

service of an Anganwari Worker on account of being elected as a

Sarpanch. He also relied upon another view taken by another learned

Single Judge in Jatinder Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (3) SCT 717

who in turn had relied upon the earlier view and rejected the challenge

whereby option had been given to Anganwari Worker to resign and

continue as a Member of the Block Samiti. The judgment of the Apex

Court in Anokh Singh Vs. Punjab State Election Commission, 2011

AIR (SC) 230 was also distinguished.

In CWP-3227-2019 titled Rekha Vs. State of Haryana &

others, which has been tagged along with the present cases, challenge is to

the order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) wherein on account of the fact

3 of 8

LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 4

that she had been appointed as an Anganwari Worker which was subject to

the decisions of the High Court in CWP-16396-2016 titled Suman Devi Vs.

Union of India & others, decided on 07.09.2018, her services were

terminated with immediate effect and thus, challenge had been raised that

there were contrary views, as such.

In LPA-466-2019 titled State of Haryana & others Vs. Smt.

Bimla Devi & another, challenge by the State of Haryana is to the order of

the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-4769-2016 dated 10.09.2018

wherein writ petition filed by Smt.Bimla Devi was allowed and the letter

whereby her services were terminated on 20.06.2013 was quashed

including the letter dated 07.09.2010. The learned Single Judge relied

upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Anokh Singh (supra), to come to

the conclusion that it had been held by the Apex Court that Anganwari

Workers do not hold a civil post and thus, are not holding any office of

profit under the State Government. Resultantly, it was held that they have

every right to contest election and she was held entitled to continue to hold

the post of Anganwari Worker. The letter dated 07.09.2010 was quashed

and directions were issued to reinstate the writ petitioner with continuity in

service and all consequential benefits. Resultantly, the issue is before this

Court due to the contrary views taken by three different Single Judges on

one side in contrast to the other view by another Judge.

Apparently, the matter had also come before a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in LPA-2073-2013 titled Kanta Devi Vs. State of

Haryana & others, wherein a bunch of cases were decided and the appeals

of the Anganwari Workers were dismissed upholding the order of the

learned Single Judge wherein removal from the elected post had been done

4 of 8

LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 5

on account of the fact that there was an appointment order as an

Anganwari Worker. The reasoning given was that there was a

responsibility to impart education to the children between the age of 3 to 5

years and a Sarpanch has to perform other duties and may be called for

Gram Panchayat's emergent meetings or visit other offices etc. and the

availability is not possible. Reliance was also placed upon letter dated

07.02.2012. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"It is also on record that before contesting election, the appellants in these cases sought permission from the department, which was declined. However, they went ahead and contested election for the post of Sarpanch.

In some cases, permission was granted to contest election. It appears that the said orders were passed in ignorance to the contents of letters dated 26.5.2010 and 4.6.2010. On the basis of consent given under above circumstances, no benefit can be given to the such like candidates.

It is also an admitted fact that Anganwadi Worker is not a holder of a civil post and does not have the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution in matters regarding her removal.

We are satisfied that duties of Sarpanch and Anganwadi Worker can not well go together. Anganwadi Worker is responsible to impart education to the children between age of three and five years. In a way, she is supposed to be present in the school during the specified hours. If there is a call from other residents asking the Sarpanch to perform other duties, may be to call Gram Panchayat's emergent meetings or visit other offices etc., probably that is not possible.

In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference.

All the appeals are dismissed."

Apparently, the matter was taken to the Apex Court also in

SLP (C) No. 13248/2014 and the same was dismissed on 21.07.2014. The

said fact was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judges. The

5 of 8

LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 6

fact also remains that it would have a binding effect on them especially the

view taken whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition

in Bimla Devi's case (supra).

A perusal of the judgment would also go on to show that the

letter dated 07.09.2010 had been quashed though admittedly, a Civil Suit

had already been filed challenging the validity of the said letter which was

dismissed on 09.05.2013 and upheld on 21.05.2015 before the District

Judge. Thereafter the writ petition had been filed. The learned Single

Judge, in our considered opinion, fell in error in entertaining the writ

petition. Once the Civil Suit had been dismissed and the Regular Second

Appeal had not been filed to challenge the same, the writ petitioner could

not have been allowed to change the track and forum and challenge the

said letter against which challenge had failed before the Civil Court.

Therefore, the judgment is not sustainable on that account also and

reliance can be placed upon the principle of relegation of remedy as has

been held by the Full Bench in Sukhi Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1982

PLR 717. The relevant para reads as under:

"10. Coming now to the second distinct category where the right or obligation giving rise to the industrial dispute springs from a source other than the Act - that is, under the general law (including therein any other statutues) then under principle, (2) the workman is expressly given two alternatives remedies. In such a case, it is in his discretion to either make resort to the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil Courts or to seek the remedies under the Act. However, he must distinctly elect his remedy. It is now authoritatively settled that he cannot have both. He is to choose one or the other."

Even otherwise, reliance upon Anokh Singh (supra) would

not be applicable in as much as it was a case wherein the issue was of

6 of 8

LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 7

debarring from contesting the elections by Lambardars and Anganwari

Workers and it had been held by this Court that Anganwari Workers are

permitted to participate in elections as Sarpanch but Lambardars were

disqualified. The issue before the Apex Court was regarding the fact

whether the person could be debarred for contesting the election of a

Member of Panchayat and whether the Lambardars could be free to contest

the elections and whether it would a disqualification under the provisions

of Section 11(g) of the State Election Commission Act, 1994 and whether

they were holding office of profit or not. The Apex Court, thereafter,

modified the said order that even Lambardars could be permitted to seek

elections of Panchayats. However, the Apex Court was never seized of the

issue that whether 2 posts could be held simultaneously. We are of the

considered opinion that the view taken in Kanta Devi (supra) is a more

probable view and a practical approach. The fact that the appointment as

Anganwari Worker, as noticed, entails certain amount of responsibility and

a person who is politically active would not be able to give that kind of

devotion to the said duties which are required on having been elected.

One of the learned Single Judges has found that it is also a matter of policy

that the State Government would prefer that the person should choose after

being elected as to which post he is to hold. Therefore, in such

circumstances, once the Anganwari Workers were not resigning from their

services who were elected as Member of Panchayat, which in our

considered opinion cannot be faulted in any manner as Anganwari

Workers are performing various duties and even the Union of India has

held that it would adversely affect the services under the ICDS Scheme.

7 of 8

LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 8

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that

the view taken by the learned Single Judges, dismissing the writ petitions,

cannot be faulted. Accordingly, LPA-1488-2016, LPA-384-2018 and

CWP-32277-2019 are liable to be dismissed while the appeal filed by the

State bearing LPA-466-2019 is allowed and the judgment of the learned

Single Judge in CWP-4769-2016 dated 10.09.2018 is set aside.

                                                (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
                                                        JUDGE


01.12.2022                                (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
Sailesh                                            JUDGE

      Whether speaking/reasoned :                     Yes/No
      Whether Reportable :                            Yes/No




                                 8 of 8