AKHILESH SINGH BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Employment Assistant vide an order dated 13-10-2010 and was posted in Gram Panchayat, Madwa. The petitioner gave his joining pursuant to his said order of appointment and started working. However, because of ill-will of the respondents No. 5 and 6, he was not being paid any honorarium and several requests were made by him before the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat as also before the Collector, Umariya but on his complaint no action was taken and no payment was made to him. Only a letter was issued to the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat in general within the Block Karkeli, District Umariya, on 11-3-2011 for sending attendance of such Village Employment Assistants so that they may be paid their honorarium. By the letter of the even date, all the Sarpanchs and Secretaries of the Gram Panchayats within the Block were directed to permit such Village Employment Assistants to mark their presence in the office of the Gram Panchayat and to send the said information to the concerning Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat so that their honorarium may be paid. However, despite this demand since nothing was done, the petitioner was required to approach this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Notices were issued to the respondents and respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed their return contending that complaint was received with respect to nonappearance of the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat. A committee of three persons namely the Additional Programme Officer, Assistant Block Development Officer and Panchayat Coordinator was constituted by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Karkeli to conduct an enquiry in that respect. On 8-11-2011 a report was made available and it was said that in fact the petitioner was not being allowed to mark his attendance in the Gram Panchayat as was deposed by several persons, who were associated in working of various schemes, being run by the Gram Panchayat. A letter was thereafter issued to the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Madwa on 7-5-2011 directing that the attendance of the petitioner be recorded every day. A complaint was made by the petitioner before the Collector again that he was not being paid the honorarium only because his attendance was not certified by the Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The Collector directed that enquiry be conducted and in case it is found that Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat are guilty of any such act, action be taken against them according to law.

(2.) By filing a return, respondents No. 5 and 6 have contended that in fact all sort of false allegations are made by the petitioner that he was attending the work at Gram Panchayat, Madwa. Complaint about non-attending the work by the petitioner in the said Gram Panchayat was made to the Chief Executive Officer. The enquiry was conducted by the Committee on such complaint but no opportunity was granted to the respondents No. 5 and 6 for making any statement. In fact the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat, Umariya has also directed to conduct an enquiry but nothing was done. Proceedings were recorded in the tour diary of the Gram Panchayat where it was recorded that the petitioner has not attended the work. Thus, it is contended that in fact the petitioner has not performed any work and was not entitled to be paid any honorarium.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder the petitioner has controverted such stand taken by the respondents in their return and has very categorically contended that the respondents No. 5 and 6 were making false allegations against him that he was not attending the duty in Gram Panchayat. In fact the petitioner is engaged in MANREGA scheme and he is required to see that employment is given to the village persons in terms of the said scheme. For the said purposes, after attending the office, he is required to look out the works, which are started under the said scheme to verify whether the employment is given to the village people or not. The statement of witnesses were recorded by the members of the Committee and they have categorically deposed that in fact petitioner was not being allowed by the respondents No. 5 and 6 to mark his presence in the Gram Panchayat though he was working. It is contended that the enquiry was not conducted even after directions issued by the Collector and the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat. For such conduct of respondents No. 5 and 6, no action was taken against the erring persons. In view of this, their stand cannot be accepted and petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of payment of honorarium for the period he has discharged the duties. It is seen that no additional return is filed by any of the respondents after filing of the rejoinder by the petitioner.