Reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy in contractual engagements, and claims should be limited to damages if found good on merits.

Headnote:DISMISSED - Anganbari Sevika - None - The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, who was disengaged as an Anganbari Sevika. The court held that the Commissioner's order rejecting the appellant's appeal was in accordance with the law and provided the appellant with a full opportunity to be heard. The court further stated that the post of Anganbari Sevika does not have security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Since the engagement is contractual and provides for honorarium, the appropriate remedy for the appellant, if still aggrieved, would be to approach the Civil Court for damages. The court emphasized that reinstatement is not appropriate in such cases and that claims should be limited to damages if found good on merits. The appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition against her disengagement as an Anganbari Sevika and the rejection of her appeal by the Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commissioner's order was in accordance with the law and provided the appellant with a full opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi:
The post of Anganbari Sevika does not have security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Reinstatement is not appropriate in contractual engagements, and claims should be limited to damages if found good on merits. Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

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