2025:HHC:35634 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2436 of 2015 Decided on: 28.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reena Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. None for respondents No.5 and 6. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The case (i) The respondent-State advertised a post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Center Dhamrol, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. on 13.11.2013. Petitioner, respondents No.4 to 6 alongwith others applied for the post. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:35634 - 2 - Petitioner emerged as successful candidate. Appointment order was issued in her favour on 07.12.2013. Petitioner, joined as such on 10.12.2013 and is continuing as Anganwari Worker. (ii) Respondent No.4, Smt. Anju Kumari, moved an application on 27.12.2013 before the Tehsildar Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, seeking cancellation of income certificate dated 20.05.2013 issued in favour of petitioner’s husband Sh. Bikram Singh S/o Sh. Raseel Singh. (iii) Simultaneously, respondent No.4 alongwith respondents No.5 and 6 filed an appeal on 31.12.2013 against the appointment order of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur. (iv) During pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur, respondent No.4’s application seeking cancellation of income certificate issued in favour of petitioner’s husband was decided by the Tehsildar Bhoranj, District Hamirpur on 03.02.2014. This application, moved by respondent No.4 was dismissed on the ground that respondent No.4 ( applicant therein) had failed to produce any documentary evidence for proving her allegations that 2025:HHC:35634 - 3 - petitioner’s husband was serving as regular Lecturer (Physical Education) or that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- or that his annual income was more than Rs.2,50,000/- and also that he had procured the income certificate dated 20.05.2013 by concealing material facts from the issuing authority (Tehsildar Bhoranj). (v) The order passed by the Tehsildar Bhoranj on 03.02.2014 was unsuccessfully challenged by respondent No.4 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (C), Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur on 10.03.2014 by filing appeal under Paras 28.20 & 28.21 of the H.P. Land Records Manual 1992. The SDO (C) Bhoranj, District Hamirpur dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 on 12.09.2014. Significantly, respondent No.4 accepted the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the SDO (C) Bhoranj, District Hamirpur against her and in favour of the petitioner’s husband. No further challenge was laid against the aforesaid order. (vi) The appeal preferred by respondent No.4 to 6 against petitioner’s appointment as Anganwari Worker was decided by the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur on 2025:HHC:35634 - 4 - 16.04.2015. The Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur considered respondents No.4 to 6’s allegations about income of petitioner’s husband Sh. Bikram Singh being in excess of the maximum income limit of the family prescribed under the applicable policy for appointment of Anganwari Workers and held that “ The appellant has provided evidence that husband of respondent is working in Punjab Technical University. This evidence is enough to show that the income of the respondent’s husband is higher than claimed and also higher than prescribed limit. Thus, in this order itself, I order Tehsildar Bhoranj to cancel the income certificate of the respondent and factor in this income of the respondent’s husband in the new certificate………..” The Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur vide his order dated 16.04.2015 set-aside petitioner’s appointment and instead ordered appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwari Worker. (vii) It is in the above background that petitioner instituted this writ petition on 27.04.2015 laying challenge to the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur. 2025:HHC:35634 - 5 - 2. Pursuant to an interim order passed in this writ petition on 29.04.2015, operation of the impugned order was stayed, as a result whereof, petitioner is continuing to serve as Anganwari Worker and has now completed more than 10 years of service as such. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration 4(i). It has been admitted by learned counsel on behalf of contesting respondent No.4 that no evidence whatsoever was produced by respondent No.4 before the Tehsildar Bhoranj, District Hamirpur or for that matter even before the SDO (C) Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, while seeking cancellation of income certificate dated 20.05.2013 issued in favour of petitioner’s husband Sh. Bikram Singh. This being the admitted position, the order passed by the Tehsildar Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, dismissing respondent No.4’s application on 03.02.2014 on the ground of lack of evidence to dispute the income certificate issued on 20.05.2013 in favour of petitioner’s husband Sh. Bikram Singh, cannot be said to be unjustified. Learned counsel further conceded 2025:HHC:35634 - 6 - that order passed on 12.09.2014 by the SDO (C) Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, dismissing respondent No.4’s appeal against the aforesaid order of Tehsildar Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, was accepted by the said respondent. It was not assailed any further. These orders thus became final. 4(ii) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further submitted that respondents No.4 to 6 in their appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur had questioned petitioner’s appointment as Anganwari Worker primarily with the allegations that income certificate issued in favour of petitioner’s husband was false and incorrect and that petitioner’s annual family income was much more than prescribed under the policy. Learned counsel, however, fairly stated that the only document placed on record before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6 (appellants therein seeking quashing of petitioner’s appointment as Anganwari Worker) in support of these allegations, has been placed on record of this writ petition at Annexure R/4-1 With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the said document has been gone into. This 2025:HHC:35634 - 7 - document has been supplied to a third party under the Right to Information Act. At page 59, the name of petitioner’s husband figures at Sr. No.8 with 09.10.2007 as date of joining Sri Sai College of Engineering & Technology, Pathankot, Punjab. No further details are discernible from this document. Neither nature of employment of petitioner’s husband nor the emoluments/remuneration paid to him nor the period/duration of his service has been indicated therein. In such given situation, as is projected by learned counsel for respondent No.4, it is difficult to fathom as to how the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur, in the impugned order dated 16.04.2015, came to conclusion that there was enough evidence to show that petitioner’s income was higher than claimed and also higher than the limit prescribed under the applicable policy and to set-aside her appointment as Anganwari Worker on that basis. 4(iii) Further, in the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur has also not looked into the aspect of respondent No.4 having not assailed the order passed by the Tehsildar Bhoranj, District Hamirpur on 03.02.2014 as affirmed by the SDO (C) Tehsil Bhoranj, 2025:HHC:35634 - 8 - District Hamirpur on 12.09.2014, dismissing her application, seeking cancellation of income certificate dated 20.05.2013 issued in favour of petitioner’s husband Sh. Bikram Singh. The factum of these orders having attained finality and the impact thereof on the question of petitioner’s income being more than prescribed limit raised by respondents No.4 to 6 in their appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur, was not gone into. 4(iv) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, an FIR bearing No.59/2015 dated 15.05.2015 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. The said FIR has been registered in view of complaint lodged by respondent No.4 alleging that the certificate/document produced by the petitioner’s husband Sh. Bikram Singh, before the Tehsildar Bhoranj, District Hamirpur at the time of issuance of income certificate dated 20.05.2013, was false and fraudulent one. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the parties apprised that the trial in the criminal case (No.301/2015, State Vs. Bikram), based upon the said FIR, is 2025:HHC:35634 - 9 - still in progress and is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. Be that as it may. 4(v) Since the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur, in the impugned order has not noticed the implications of orders passed by the Tehsildar Bhoranj on 03.02.2014 as affirmed by the SDO (C) Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur on 12.09.2014, the later order having been accepted by respondent No.4 or the implication of order dated 12.09.2014 having attained finality whereby respondent No.4’s challenge to income certificate of petitioner’s husband was rejected, the matter is required to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur afresh, more so, in light of the fact that the only document placed by respondents No.4 to 6 before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur, in their capacity as appellants, seeking quashing of petitioner’s appointment as Anganwari Worker on the allegations of her income being more than prescribed limit, did not throw any light upon the income of the petitioner’s husband. The observations made by the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur, in the impugned order that there was evidence to show that petitioner’s income was 2025:HHC:35634 - 10 - higher than the prescribed limit, are not borne out from the record. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur is quashed and set-aside. The case is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur for a fresh decision in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur, on 14.11.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge October 28, 2025 R.Atal