2025:HHC:31986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6326 of 2023 Decided on: 17th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raksha Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Respondent No.7 ex-parte. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The income certificate produced by the petitioner, on the basis of which she was selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker in an Anganwari Centre, has been cancelled by the issuing authority. Petitioner’s appeal against the cancellation order has also been 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:31986 dismissed by the appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has taken recourse to writ remedy. 2. The case 2(i). A notification was issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 29.02.2016, whereby revised guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/Helpers under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) Programme in Himachal Pradesh were issued. As per the said notification, one of the eligibility criteria was that the annual income of the family of the candidate should not exceed Rs.35,000/-, to be certified/countersigned by an Officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar. 2(ii). Petitioner and respondent No.6 participated in a selection process held in the year 2017 for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Thakkar Gawana, Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmour. Interviews were conducted on 16.03.2017. Petitioner emerged successful in the selection process and was appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Thakkar Gawana. While applying for the post, she had furnished an income certificate issued to her on 14.03.2017 by the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu, District Sirmour, certifying that petitioner’s family income from all 3 2025:HHC:31986 sources does not exceed Rs.35,000/- per annum. This certificate was taken into consideration while selecting the petitioner as Anganwari Worker. 2(iii). Respondent No.6, feeling aggrieved against petitioner’s selection and appointment as Anganwari Worker, preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Nahan on 21.04.2017, challenging the income certificate issued to the petitioner on 14.03.2017. The appeal was disposed of on 27.09.2017 as not maintainable with the observation that the certificate in question had been issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu; Respondent No.6 had directly laid challenge to the income certificate before the appellate authority without taking appropriate remedy before the authority, which had issued the income certificate in question. 2(iv). Respondent No.6 thereafter filed Case No.01/2017 in the Court of Assistant Collector (Naib Tehsildar), Dadahu, District Sirmour, challenging petitioner’s income certificate. Elaborate proceedings were conducted by the Naib Tehsildar in the complaint instituted by respondent No.6. Vide order dated 05.10.2020, Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu allowed the complaint. Income certificate dated 14.03.2017 issued to the petitioner was cancelled 4 2025:HHC:31986 with immediate effect from the date of its issuance. Benefits availed by the petitioner on the basis of said income certificate were also held liable to be withdrawn accordingly. Petitioner was directed to immediately surrender the original income certificate to the Certificate Issuing Authority. While allowing respondent No.6’s complaint, Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu concluded on facts that petitioner’s husband had been working in M/s Valley Iron Steel Company Limited w.e.f. January, 2016 to March, 2017. He had been drawing the salary of Rs.9950/- per month. Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu also held that petitioner’s family had agriculture income of Rs.15200/- per annum from their land holding. Therefore, income of the petitioner was much more than certified in the income certificate dated 14.03.2017. 2(v). Petitioner’s appeal against the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu was rejected by the Collector, Sub-Division Nahan, District Sirmour on 20.06.2023. Feeling aggrieved against cancellation of her income certificate dated 14.03.2017 by the Naib Tehsildar under order dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure P-11) and affirmation of this order by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Nahan on 20.06.2023 (Annexure P-13), petitioner has 5 2025:HHC:31986 instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive relief:- “a) That impugned orders Annexure P11 and P13 respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside and complaint as filed by respondent No.5 copy of which already stand annexed supra may also kindly be quashed and set aside. In the alternative it is prayed that after setting aside impugned order, matter may kindly be ordered to be remanded to Naib Tehsildar Dadahu for proceeding further from the order dated 25.03.2019 always after allowing an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant and so also allowing the applicant produce evidence so that there can see the light of the day and opportunity to do justice between the parties.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration:- 4(i). The contentions urged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had not been provided adequate opportunity of hearing in order to defend her case. Before the Naib Tehsildar, petitioner had been represented by her Special Power of Attorney (SPA), i.e. her husband. Petitioner’s relationship with her husband had become strained from the year 2017 onwards. Petitioner had to take recourse to provisions of Domestic Violence Act against her husband-Sh. Pradeep Kumar, wherein vide order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned 6 2025:HHC:31986 Sessions Judge, District Sirmour, her husband was restrained from entering into the house/room, where the petitioner had been residing with her child in her matrimonial home and with further directions not to dispossess her from the same. That petitioner was not aware about the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu and the manner in which they were being conducted. She could not take effective steps to defend her income certificate in those proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 has refuted the above and submitted that the petitioner had been given due opportunity at every stage. Learned Senior Counsel defended the two concurrent orders passed against the petitioner, cancelling the income certificate issued in her favour on 14.03.2017. 4(ii). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his plea of petitioner having not been provided adequate opportunity by the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu to defend herself, specifically invited attention to an order passed by the said authority on 25.03.2019, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner. The said application was moved for the petitioner for transposing proforma respondent-Devi Ram (present respondent No.7) 7 2025:HHC:31986 as complainant with a further prayer to direct said Sh. Devi Ram to step into the witness box and to permit the petitioner to cross-examine all the witnesses of the complainant. The above-referred application of the petitioner was dismissed on 25.03.2019. While dismissing the application, the authority has noted in the order that statements of complainant’s witnesses had already been recorded. Despite grant of opportunity, they had not been cross-examined for the petitioner. Her application for transposing the proforma respondent as complainant and to allow her to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the complainant could not be accepted. It is an admitted position that the above order had been assailed by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.2 of 2019 before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil), Nahan. The appeal was dismissed on 19.02.2020, being barred by limitation. It’s a matter of record that no challenge was laid by the petitioner to the order dated 19.02.2020. She accepted the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Nahan on 19.02.2020. Consequently, the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar attained finality. The said order passed by 8 2025:HHC:31986 the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu has not been assailed even in this petition. 4(iii). The case record shows that the petitioner was being represented through her husband as her SPA in the case instituted against her by respondent No.6 before the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu. Petitioner had appeared in person in the said case on 20.01.2018. Petitioner’s husband had also appeared in the proceedings. He was provided opportunity to cross-examine respondent No.6’s witnesses. Petitioner’s husband did not cross-examine all the witnesses. Rather, he chose to examine only one witness of the complainant, i.e. Sh. Deep Chand. The said Sh. Deep Chand had come with the record of salary received by petitioner’s husband from M/s Valley Iron Steel Company, Rampur Majri, Dhaulakuan, District Sirmour. In the given facts, it cannot be said to be a case of denial of due opportunity, as is being projected for the petitioner. In fact, petitioner’s husband had also filed list of witnesses on 16.12.2018 alongwith an affidavit. Petitioner had remained present in person before the said authority alongwith her learned counsel on 15.02.2019 as well. She was duly represented by her learned counsel on 20.02.2019 also, when a request for adjournment was made on her behalf. It 9 2025:HHC:31986 was on 26.02.2019 that an application was moved for the petitioner seeking cancellation of SPA and to permit her to cross-examine the witnesses. The prayer for cross- examining the witnesses and to transpose proforma respondent-Devi Ram as complainant was turned down on 25.03.2019. As noticed above, this order was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. In view of the proceedings conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, which have been placed on record by the parties, petitioner’s assertions that she was not aware of the proceedings till 26.02.2019 are not correct. Furthermore, petitioner had concealed the factum of her husband being in gainful service while obtaining income certificate. Respondent No.6 proved this fact by producing evidence before the Naib Tehsildar, whereafter, it was not denied by the petitioner that her husband had been employed in M/s Valley Iron Steel Company. It has been proved on record that petitioner’s husband was drawing salary of Rs.9950/- per month from this company. Petitioner’s family also had admitted agriculture income of Rs.15,200/- from its land holdings (approx. 40 bighas as per appellant) [Total income from January, 2016 to March, 10 2025:HHC:31986 2017, i.e. the year preceding the date of applying & date of interview, i.e. 16.03.2017:- Rs.9950 X 14 (months) + Rs.15200= Rs.1,54,500/-]. The issuing authority was, therefore, justified in cancelling the income certificate, certifying petitioner’s family income ‘not exceeding Rs.35,000/- per annum from all sources’ that was issued to the petitioner primarily on the basis of her declaration on 14.03.2017. The order has been justly affirmed by the appellate authority as well. Petitioner’s family income for the period was certainly much more than the maximum prescribed eligibility limit of Rs.35000/- per annum under the ‘Anganwari Policy’. 5. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector, Sub-Division Nahan, District Sirmour and the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Dadahu on 05.10.2020 was affirmed. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 17, 2025 Judge Mukesh