Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1017
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SMT. MEENA RAY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
SPA 884 / 2017
SL. N o .
D a t e
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s
COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
2 4 ( 1 3 SPA / 8 8 4 / 2 0 1 7 H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) . Mr. Raj eev Bhat t , learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. Mr. P.S. Bisht , learned Addit ional . C.S.C. for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. Mr. Kishore Kum ar, learned counsel . for respondent no. 5. . This int ra- court appeal is direct ed against t he j udgm ent dat ed 02.05.2017 rendered in WPSS No. 1640 of 2012. The im pugned j udgm ent is ext ract ed below for ready reference: - “ Mr. Kisore Kum ar, Advocat e for t he pet it ioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, S.C. for t he St at e. Pet it ioner was appoint ed as Anganw adi Wroker in Shakt i Farm , Block Sit arganj ( U.S. Nagar) . Services of t he pet it ioner were t erm inat ed vide order dat ed 22.05.2012 wit hout hearing her. The prim ary ground for t erm inat ing t he pet it ioner from service was t hat her fam ily incom e has been increased from Rs. 1300 t o Rs. 3000/ - per m ont h. However, t he fact of t he m at t er is t hat pet it ioner ought t o have been heard before passing t he order dat ed 22.05.2012. Thus, t here is violat ion of principles of nat ural j ust ice. Accordingly, t he w rit pet it ion is allowed. I m pugned order dat ed 22.05.2012 is quashed and set aside. Respondent s are direct ed t o reinst at e t he pet it ioner in service wit h all consequent ial benefit s. However, t he libert y is reserved t o t he
5 7 6 respondent s t o proceed wit h t he m at t er in accordance wit h law . All pending applicat ions also st and disposed of.” . Appellant was arrayed as respondent no. 5 in t he writ pet it ion. According t o t he appellant , writ Prem a pet it ioner ( Km . Sarkar) was engaged as Anganbari Karyakat ri cont rary t o Governm ent Policy, as her m ont hly incom e was beyond perm issible lim it s; on appellant ’s com plaint , writ pet it ioner’s engagem ent as Anganbari Karyakat ri was discont inued vide order dat ed 22.05.2012 on t he ground t hat her incom e cert ificat e was cancelled by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y; t he said order was challenged by Km . Prem a Sarkar in a pet it ion. Learned counsel for t he appellant . subm it s t hat alt hough appellant was arrayed as respondent no. 5 in t he writ pet it ion, however, t he writ pet it ion was decided, wit hout not ice t o her. He furt her subm it s t hat as per norm s, a lady wit h monthly income upto ₹2,000/- alone, is eligible for appoint m ent as Anganbari Karyakat ri, while incom e of t he writ petitioner was more than ₹3,000/- per m ont h, t herefore, she was ineligible and her engagem ent was right ly discont inued on appellant ’s com plaint . . Learned counsel for t he writ no. 5 pet it ioner ( respondent herein) subm it s t hat since t he order dat ed 22.05.2012, whereby pet it ioner engagem ent was discont inued, was passed wit hout hearing her, t herefore, t he writ pet it ion was right ly allowed on t he ground t hat principles of nat ural j ust ice were violat ed. He furt her subm it s
9 A 8 t hat libert y is grant ed t o t he Aut horit ies t o proceed in t he m at t er, as per law. We find force in t he subm ission . m ade by learned counsel
