Laxmi Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Perusal of the document appended therewith demonstrates that the proceedings that were earlier initiated by the petitioner before the learned Civil Court/Appellate Court were allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court.

Heard.

The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of an unfortunate incident that took place in the month of April 2011, in which, one small child, who was found missing, was found dead in a water tank, the services of the petitioner, who was serving as an Aaganwari Helper at Dhoun Kyarga, Gram Panchayat Kotla Molar were terminated. As per the petitioner, she was appointed as an Aaganwari Helper on 01.08.2007.

The services of the petitioner were terminated alongwith one Kiran Thakur, who was working as Aaganwari Worker. Both the petitioner as well as Kiran Thakur assailed the order of termination by way of Civil Suits. The Civil Suits filed by the petitioner as well as Kiran Thakur were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner as well as Kiran Thakur filed appeals. Whereas, the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn in terms of order dated 27.02.2020, which is appended with the supplementary affidavit, which has been taken on record today, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, the appeal filed by Kiran Thakur was allowed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan, in terms of judgment and decree dated 22.12.2022, copy whereof is appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after this judgment, Smt. Kiran Thakur has been reengaged in service and as the petitioner is similarly situated as Kiran Thakur, she cannot be discriminated in the matter and accordingly he prays that the writ petition be allowed and a direction be issued to the respondents to reengage the petitioner also as has been done in the case of Kiran Thakur. Learned counsel has also prayed that the order of termination dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure P-3) be also quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the petition and he has submitted that the incident which led to the death of an innocent child was a result of the negligence on the part of the petitioner as well as Kiran Thakur, therefore, the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated. He further submitted that as the termination of the petitioner cannot be faulted, therefore, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. As far as the factum of the appeal of Kiran Thakur being allowed by the Appellate Court and thereafter, she being reengaged in service is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that, in terms of the reply, after the appeal was allowed in favour of Kiran Thakur, on the basis of the legal opinion, she was allowed to join against the post of Aaganwari Worker w.e.f. 30.06.2023.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition.

The reasons, which led to the termination of the services of the petitioner have already been mentioned by me hereinabove. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner as well as Kiran Thakur, were terminated on account of the same incidence. Now, whereas, after the decision of the Civil Court in the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, when she preferred the appeal, her appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the termination of the petitioner before the Competent Court by assigning the reasoning that as per law service disputes were not within the realm of Civil Courts, the appeal filed by Kiran Thakur was decided on merit by the Court of learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan on 22.12.2022. In terms of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, it set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and declared order dated 07.05.2011 to be null and void on the ground that the same besides being a non-speaking and an unreasoned order had been passed without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff and no inquiry was conducted before the termination of the services of the appellant.

In the present case also, the order, in terms whereof, the services of the petitioner were terminated is dated 07.05.2011. It has not been disputed before the Court that the termination of Kiran Thakur was verbatim in terms of order of termination that was issued to the petitioner also and the same course was adopted by the respondents-Department in terminating the service of the petitioner as well as Laxmi Devi.

In this backdrop, when the order of termination relating to Kiran Thakur has already been held to be bad by a Competent Court of law and the judgment has not only attained finality but it has been implemented by the Department by reengaging Kiran Thakur, this Court is of the considered view that the order of termination of the petitioner dated 07.05.2011 cannot be sustained and she is also entitled for same and similar treatment as Kiran Thakur.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reengage the petitioner as an Aaganwari Helper on the same analogy, on which, Kiran Thakur was engaged and from the date when Kiran Thakur was engaged with all consequential benefits. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.