The nature of engagement as an Anganbari Sevika on honorarium does not provide security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Anganbari Sevika - Disengagement from Anganbari Sevika Scheme - The court held that the post of Anganbari Sevika does not have security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India due to its nature of engagement on honorarium. The appellant was advised to approach the Civil court for damages if still aggrieved.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a writ petition against her disengagement as Anganbari Sevika and the rejection of her appeal by the Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:

The writ petition was dismissed by the court, stating that the disengagement was in accordance with the law and that the post of Anganbari Sevika does not have security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Disengagement of the appellant as Anganbari Sevika, nature of engagement, and the availability of relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the post of Anganbari Sevika does not have security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India due to its nature of engagement on honorarium. The appellant was advised to approach the Civil court for damages if still aggrieved.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition preferred by the appellant against her disengagement as Anganbari Sevika and against ORDER :of the Commissioner rejecting her appeal has been dismissed by the writ court after holding that ORDER :of the Commissioner is in accordance with law and was passed after giving full opportunity to the writ petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the scheme in which Anganbari Sevikas are engaged on honorarium required a different treatment with the appellant.

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 for 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document