IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN &

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH EXECUTION PETIT ION NO. 148 OF 2021 Between:-

SUSHMA MEHTA, D/O SHRI D. R. MEHTA, R/O BHAGWATI NIWAS, SET NO. 4, NEAR CHARAN NIWAS, LOWER CEMETARY (FROOD), KAMLA NAGAR, SANJAULI, SHIMLA-171006.

...PETITIONER (SH. SURINDER SAKLANI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PANCHAYATI RAJ), TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

2. DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-9.

3. PRINCIPAL PANCHAYATI RAJ TRAINING INSTITUTE, MASHOBRA-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY, HIMACHAL PRADESH PANCHAYATI RAJ TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING SOCIETY.

4. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.

...RESPONDENTS (SH. ASHOK SHARMA, A.G. WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDL.

A.G., SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDL. A.G., SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR, SH. YUDHBIR SINGH THAKUR AND SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER, FOR RESPONDENTS-STATE.

SH. BALRAM SHARMA, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENER AL OF INDIA FOR UNION OF INDIA)

This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:-

O R D E R

The instant execution petition was disposed of by this Court by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.) vide order dated 09.04.2021 with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order/judgment dated 23.03.2012 passed in HCWP No. 4910 of 2011, titled as Sushma Mehta vs. State of H.P. &

Ors.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy in question, it would be necessary to recapitulate the facts. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. CWP No. 4910 of 2011 with the grievance that after the year, 2013 no work was being allotted to her even though she was appointed as a Coordinator (Gender) in the State Support Centre (for short 'SSC'), under the Panchayat Mahila Evam Yuva Shakti Abhiyan (for short 'PMEYSA), a project sponsored by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India. It was averred that the selection and appointment of the petitioner was in accordaHnce with the rules and the petitioner thereafter had been successfully discharging her duties. f

3. The respondents filed the reply to the petition, wherein it was stated that the amount disbursed by the Union of India stands fully utilized arnd since there are no funds available in the salary component under the scheme under which the petitioner was engaged, the period of engagement cannot be extendedC.

4. Reliance was placed by the respondents on the letter dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure R-3), which reads as under:-

g “To, i The Additional Secretary, H Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171009.

Subject: Submission of Project Proposal under the Panchayat Mahila Evam Yuva Shakti Abhiyan (PMEYSA) for Financial Year 2011-12 continuation of State Support Centre thereof -regarding.

Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter no.PCH-HC(10)1/2006- III-6791 dated 25.06.2011 on the above mentioned subject and to say that as per Para-6 of the guidelines of scheme of PMEYSA (copy enclosed), State Support Centre (SSC) would keep updated information related to the participation of EWRs and EYRs in Panchayati Raj Institutions for the entire State and serve as Knowledge Support Institution. This Centre will hire resource persons and experts in the fields of CommHunity Development, Gender Development and Youth Development. These Resource persons would be utilize d for other schemes of MoPR also under implementation in the State. The expenditure on the staff on contractual basis for the SSCs would be paid for by the Ministry through reimbursement after making paymetnt by the State Government/SSC and submission of Urtilization Certificate thereof. In view of above posuition, it may be certified that during the period of claim of above mentioned reimbursement, the staff(s) were actually working for the SSC. The continuity of services