High Court · 2025

1. Mr. Raj eev Bhat t , learned counsel for t he pet it ioner.

2. Mr. P.S. Bisht , learned Addit ional C.S.C. for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand.

3. Mr. Kishore Kum ar, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. This int ra- court appeal is direct ed 4. against t he j udgm ent dat ed 02.05.2017 rendered in WPSS No. 1640 of 2012. The im pugned j udgm ent is ext ract ed below for ready reference: - “ Mr. Kisore Kum ar, Advocat e t he pet it ioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, S.C. for t he St at e. Pet it ioner was appoint ed as Anganw adi Wroker in Shakt i Farm , Block Sit arganj ( U.S. Nagar) . Services of t he pet it ioner were t erm inat ed vide order dat ed 22.05.2012 wit hout hearing her. The prim ary ground for t erm inat ing t he pet it ioner from service was t hat her fam ily incom e has been increased from Rs. 1300 t o Rs. 3000/ - per m ont h. However, t he fact of t he m at t er is t hat pet it ioner ought t o have been heard before passing t he order dat ed 22.05.2012. Thus, t here is violat ion of principles of nat ural j ust ice. Accordingly, t he w rit pet it ion is allowed. I m pugned quashed and set aside. Respondent s are direct ed t o reinst at e t he pet it ioner in service wit h all consequent ial benefit s. However, t he libert y is reserved t o t he

22.05.2012 dat ed respondent s t o proceed wit h t he m at t er in accordance wit h law . All pending applicat ions also disposed of.” st and t o arrayed Anganbari

5. Appellant respondent no. 5 in t he writ pet it ion. appellant , writ t he According ( Km . Prem a Sarkar) was pet it ioner engaged Karyakat ri cont rary t o Governm ent Policy, as her m ont hly incom e was beyond perm issible lim it s; on appellant ’s com plaint , writ pet it ioner’s engagem ent as Anganbari Karyakat ri was discont inued vide order dat ed 22.05.2012 on t he ground t hat her incom e cert ificat e was cancelled by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y; t he said order was challenged by Km . Prem a Sarkar in a pet it ion. Learned counsel for t he appellant 6. subm it s t hat alt hough appellant was arrayed as respondent no. 5 in t he writ pet it ion, however, t he writ pet it ion was decided, wit hout not ice t o her. He furt her subm it s t hat as per norm s, a lady wit h monthly income upto ₹2,000/- alone, is for appoint m ent as Anganbari eligible Karyakat ri, while t he writ incom e of petitioner was more than ₹3,000/- per m ont h, t herefore, she was ineligible and her engagem ent was right ly discont inued on appellant ’s com plaint . counsel Learned t hat since t he writ 7. ( respondent no. 5 herein) pet it ioner t he order dat ed subm it s 22.05.2012, pet it ioner engagem ent was discont inued, was passed wit hout hearing her, t herefore, t he writ pet it ion was right ly allowed on t hat principles of nat ural t he ground j ust ice were violat ed. He furt her subm it s whereby t hat libert y is grant ed t o t he Aut horit ies t o proceed in t he m at t er, as per law. t he subm ission 8. We m ade by learned counsel for t he writ pet it ioner. Since t he writ pet it ioner was not heard by Child Developm ent Proj ect Officer, Sit arganj , while passing t he t herefore, 22.05.2012, learned Single Judge was set t ing aside t he order, whereby her engagem ent was discont inued. j ust ified dat ed

9. However, having regard t o t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, we dispose of t he special appeal, wit h libert y t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y t o pass order afresh, aft er affording opport unit y of t o writ pet it ioner as well as hearing appellant ; t hat writ pet it ioner was appoint ed in disregard of t he St at e t he Governm ent . fixed by incom e lim it , ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

19.05.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f98 02a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5 C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL