SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
SITA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CWP No.9345 of 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Tamanna Sharma
For the Respondents: Rajat Chauhan, Ajay Kochhar, Vivek Sharma, Anubhav Chopra

A court may allow an employee to continue in service on grounds of equity if they have been serving under an interim stay order, effectively setting aside an administrative order of termination or disqualification.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which held the appointment of the petitioner as an Aaganwari Worker to be invalid on the grounds that the annual family income exceeded the maximum limit provided in the eligibility policy. The appointment, initiated in 2007, had been subject to extensive litigation regarding the veracity of the income certificate and the status of the petitioner's village as a feeder village. The court addressed whether the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service despite the adverse finding on income eligibility. The court reasoned that since an interim order had been in place since 03.12.2013 staying the impugned order, it would be equitable to allow the petitioner to continue serving if she had remained in post on the strength of that stay. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Table of Content
1. challenge to appointment of aaganwari worker based on income eligibility and feeder village status. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. continuity of service granted on grounds of equity due to existing interim stay. (Para 3 , 5)
3. formal disposal of the writ petition. (Para 6)

1

Whether approved for reporting?

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

i) “That the respondents may kindly be directed to quash and set aside order dated 12.11.2013 i.e. Annexure P-7.

ii) That the present petitioner may be allowed to continue her services at her present place.”

2. The petitioner has assailed order dated 12.11.2013, Annexure P-7, which has been passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, the appointment of the petitioner as Aaganwari Worker was held to be bad on the ground that the income of the petitioner was found to be over and above the maximum annual family income provided in the policy to be eligible for being appointed as an Aaganwari Worker.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the documents appended therew ith, including the impugner order.

4. Record demonstrates that in a process that was initiated by the Department in the year 2007 for appointment of an Aaganwari Worker at Aaganwari Centre Sari, the petitioner was found successful. She was also offered appointment. Her appointment was challenged by the private respondent, whose appeal was allowed at the first instance. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order passed First Authority was allowed. The record further demonstrates that there was lot of litigation between the parties regarding the veracity of the income certificate as also the fact as to whether the village of the petitioner was a feeder village of the Aaganwari Centre concerned or not.

5. Be that as it may, record of this case demonstrates that on 03.12.2013, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and the operation of the impugned order was stayed. In the light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner is continuing to serve even today on the strength of this order, then, no purpose is going to be served by ordering the discontinuation of the petitioner and on the gr ound of equity, respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue and the impugned order shall be deemed to have been set aside by this Court. However, if after the passing of the impugned order and even after the passing of the interim order by this Court, the petitioner has not continued to serve on the said post, then, consequences in terms of the impugned order to ensue and the respondents shall be liberty to fill up the post of Aaganwari Worker in accordance with law, if not already done.

6. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top