Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10521 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Pratibha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadhu Sharan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to permit her to discharge the duties of Anganwadi Sahaika at Anganwadi Kendra Jivpur, Block Jamania, District Ghazipur and pay her honorarium since 2016 to the said post.
On a pointed query made by the Court, with regard to the engagement of the petitioner and her continuance as Anganwadi Sahaika since 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the show cause notice dated 12.5.2016 issued by the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Jamania, Ghazipur; whereby the petitioner has been asked to explain as to why she remained absent for a period of more than two years from the Anganwadi Centre.
The show cause notice dated 12.5.2016 categorically states that as per the records available and the report of Mukhya Sevika, it is evident that the petitioner was absent for a period of two years and, as such, no honorarium was payable to her.
A further perusal of the reply dated 28.5.2016 submitted by the petitioner (page '27' of the paper book) indicates that in Paragraph- 2 thereof, the petitioner states that she had received honorarium only till 26.11.2014. Thus, it is admitted to the petitioner that no honorarium was paid to her after 26.11.2014. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice dated 12.5.2016 was in retaliation of the complaint made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on 3.5.2016, therefore, is not acceptable. The said complaint appears to be motivated. The reason behind is that the petitioner has never made any complaint to any of the Competent Authority for non-payment of honorarium since after 26.11.2014 till 3.5.2016, when for the first time she had levelled allegations against the husband of respondent No.6 namely Smt. Kiran Kala Devi who was working as Anganwadi Karyakarti in the said centre.
For the above noted reasons, reference to entries in the passbook Page '21' of the paper book to submit that the petitioner was receiving honorarium till the year 2015, is misplaced.
For all the above noted reasons, it is more than apparent that the petitioner has not worked as Anganwadi Sahaika since after 26.11.2014. The claim of the petitioner to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to permit her to continue, therefore, is not entertainable.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Jyotsana