Issue
Arguments Of Petitioner
Reasoning
Decision
Neetu Kumari W/o Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha @ Rambabu
v.
The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary
(High Court Of Judicature At Patna)
Letters Patent Appeal No. 772 of 2011 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8194 of 2010 | 12-08-2011
1. 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.
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.
Advocates List
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMARESH KR. LAL, JJ.
Eq Citation
2011 (4) PLJR 20
LQ/PatHC/2011/1955
HeadNote
Constitution of India — Art. 32 — Maintainability — Anganbari Sevika — Non-tenure post — Dismissal from service — Relief — Held, appellant may approach Civil Court for damages — For such contractual engagements, relief of reinstatement not appropriate
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
