PUSHPA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

(2.) With the consent of the parties' Counsel, this special appeal is being disposed of finally.

(3.) The appellant, who was appointed as Angan Bari Karyakatri on 16.8.2003 is faced with an order of termination of her appointment/ engagement passed by the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari on 19.7.2004. The reason for terminating the engagement of the appellant as Angan Bari Karyakatri was the complaint made against her saying that her income certificate was forged. On the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry was conducted by Tehsildar Lambhua district Sultanpur who on making the enquiry cancelled the income certificate of Pushpa Pandey and held that the income of the appellant was Rs. 2,960 per month which was above the poverty line. The order was passed by the Tehsildar on 23.7.2005. After cancellation of the certificate issued by the Tehsildar and the order passed by him holding that, the appellant's income was not below the poverty line and it was above the poverty line, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 19.12.2003 requiring her to submit an explanation against the order passed by the Tehsildar cancelling the income certificate in which her income was shown as Rs. 2,962/- per month which is equivalent to Rs. 35,544/- annually. The appellant submitted her reply on 22.12.2003 in which she clarified that her husband was also engaged as Shiksha Mitra from 18th September, 2002 to 20th May, 2003 and his total annual income was Rs. 18,177/- and on the date when the appellant applied for the income certificate, this was the total income of the family. The order passed by the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari terminating the engagement of the appellant does not take into consideration the submission made by the appellant but on the basis of the complaint and the report submitted by the Tehsildar, her appointment has been terminated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a writ petition, which has been dismissed summarily by the learned single Judge on 19.1.2005.